<<The OGC needs to be clearly identiifed _every place that it exists_.
The problem with the "appendix" method is that it doesn't indicate what
you can copy of the mixed OGC on page 6, it just reprints it in the
appendix.
>>
I don't understand how it doesn't indicate what you can copy. If you said, basically that what follows is an exact duplicate of the print copy, and that you can compare it to the print copy to find what is and is not open content because:
1) all art has been replaced by empty frames with the words "Product Identity" in them
2) all PI is reprinted in strike through text
3) everything else that is reprinted that doesn't have these two features is OGC.
How much clearer can it get? It's practically a road map indicating, down to the word and its position on the page, what is and is not OGC and PI?
What part of the mixed OGC from page 6 could you reprint? Well, you'd go to page 6 in the PDF. You'd see a duplicate copy of the page. The artwork and the PI would have been struck out, but still has some placeholders there to identify what is what.
I'd say that this would be FANTASTICALLY clear about what you could and couldn't reprint.
<<
(Now, considering everything else that's gone wrong, the appendix
method, by itself, probably won't get you sued--but better safe than
sorry, especially when the advice is (1) from a competent professional
and (2) charitably given.)
>>
That's worth considering, definitely.
<<A specific fault for the declaration-on-CD idea is that the work isn't
Clearly Identified in the way that it's meant to be used. If I don't
have a CD-ROM, or I lose the CD, I'm without my declaration. If you
want to risk the Appendix method (don't do it), a flyer or bound
integral appendix is probably a better way to go.>>
As I said, if I print a loose leaf document in shrink wrap and you lose the OGC declaration page then you're in the same situation.
I do appreciate the cautions.
Lee
