It's not clear to me how GPL interacts with Javascript code.
On the face of it, if you include a GPL component in to your system, anything you send along with that component is also GPL.
So, if you have GPL Javascript file, and a personal javascript file, and you use them both on the same page, then, because of the GPLs viral nature, your personal Javascript file is also implicitly licensed under the GPL.
The reasoning behind this is similar to if you took GPL code and included it in to the source code of another source file, your work becomes a derivative of the GPL. Since the only way to load Javascript is to physically include the source code into the running browser, I think the same case applies.
Also, note, that all of your content along with the GPL component, is also GPL. Specifically all of the text and HTML (though not the images -- just the links to the images).
The browser does not distinguish between HTML and Javascript as "Content" vs "code". Rather, the HTML is just a special kind of code that manipulates the DOM.
So, that implies that you can't even have copyright over your own text, the whole mess is GPL.
To be clear, I'm not just referring to your code, your HTML, your whatever. But everything included and rendered on the page. For example, if you wrote a Blog program and SOMEONE ELSE used it for their own work, THEIR posts would be under the GPL. Something that they posted in to the program, their potential award winning masterpiece, is GPL'd. They may think they have copyright, they may even put a copyright notice on their site, but it's in error and conflict with the GPL. The combined "program" that constitutes the web page at the time of publication is a singular derivative Program. Code, Markup, Text and all. How can it not be? It's a single composite source file.
Perhaps it could be finagled around, for example, perhaps the web page can execute and load the text via an XHR and then "publish it", but even then I'd be skeptical.
Unless the component that you're using has a specific exception noted in their license regarding this concept of inclusion, then I personally would avoid a GPL component on my web page. It's a very messy area.
Edit: Just to clarify GNU's position on this.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhyNotGPLForManuals
I am writing a website maintenance
system (called a “content management
system” by some), or some other
application which generates web pages
from templates. What license should I
use for those templates?
Templates are minor enough that it is not worth using copyleft to protect
them. It is normally harmless to use
copyleft on minor works, but templates
are a special case, because they are
combined with data provided by users
of the application and the combination
is distributed. So, we recommend that
you license your templates under
simple permissive terms.
Some templates make calls into Javascript functions. Since Javascript
is often non-trivial, it is worth
copylefting. Because the templates
will be combined with user data, it's
possible that template+user
data+Javascript would be considered
one work under copyright law. A line
needs to be drawn between the
Javascript (copylefted), and the user
code (usually under incompatible
terms).
They off an exception for javascript code that does this:
As a special exception to the GPL, any HTML file
which merely makes function calls to this code,
and for that purpose includes it by reference
shall be deemed a separate work for copyright law
purposes. In addition, the copyright holders of
this code give you permission to combine this code
with free software libraries that are released under
the GNU LGPL. You may copy and distribute such a
system following the terms of the GNU GPL for this
code and the LGPL for the libraries. If you modify
this code, you may extend this exception to your
version of the code, but you are not obligated to
do so. If you do not wish to do so, delete this
exception statement from your version.
But note, the exception is NOT is the standard GPL license and would need to be offered independently by the actual author the JS library.
So, no, it's not inaccurate at all.