Earlier quoted context omitted.
>If you're using this framework for your personal project - you're free to not to release source code - since you're not distributing the binaries of your project either. In this case you can't even publish the code, since compiled js is kind of binary.
Can't you treat the part you're "distributing" - i.e. the client side html/css/js - as a separate part and open source only this? But not sure if this kind of thing is really distribution. GPL* licenses were more oriented towards traditional compiled software and it is somewhat unclear with regard to nowadays prevalent web apps.
The laywer replied judges would consider such schemes to be "subterfuges", and ask whether it was "really" one program with different labeled parts. Stallman sent a reply back to jobs, based on that recommendation from the lawyer.
Websites might feel very different from a technical point of view, but trying to do smart and tricky things with law always end up with the same question: How will a judge or jury view it. If I go to hackernews, do I get several "works" of JS, CSS, HTML, or is it a singular work with different labeled parts?