Linux Documentation Project Reviewer HOWTO
Emma Jane Hogbin
xtrinsic
<emmajane@xtrinsic.com>
David Merrill
david -AT- lupercalia.net
Joy Yokley
<jyokley@us.ibm.com>
2004-04-19
Revision History
Revision 1.4.2 2004-05-24 EJH
Corrected spelling mistakes.
Revision 1.4.1 2004-04-19 EJH
Minor updates to the language and markup, emphasizing the reporting
procedures for reviews. Also changed the order of the reviews to reflect
actual procedure (technical, language and finally metadata).
Revision 1.4 2004-04-18 EJH
Updated the language review: clarified use of capitals, and added a new
requirement that Latin abbreviations always use their English counterpart
instead.
Revision 1.3 2004-01-31 EJH
Added the metadata and markup review information.
Revision 1.2 2003-11-09 TMM
Updated content, URLs, mailing lists, converted to XML.
Revision 1.1 2001-05-12 DCM
Minor bugfixes.
Revision 1.0 2001-05-01 jy
Initial release.
Abstract
This document will help you review LDP documentation. It includes procedures
and techniques for the review process of all new, and existing, LDP documents.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table of Contents
1._Introduction
1.1._Copyright_and_License
1.2._Acknowledgements
2._Reviewing_Newly_Submitted_Documentation
3._Reviewing_Existing_Documentation
3.1._Choosing_a_Document
3.2._License_Issues
3.3._Working_With_the_Latest_Version
3.4._Picking_a_Review_to_Conduct
4._Peer_Review
5._Technical_Accuracy_Review
6._Language_Review
7._Metadata_and_Markup_Review
7.1._Required_Markup
7.2._Required_Metadata
8._Reporting_Your_Results
A._GNU_Free_Documentation_License
1._0._PREAMBLE
2._1._APPLICABILITY_AND_DEFINITIONS
3._2._VERBATIM_COPYING
4._3._COPYING_IN_QUANTITY
5._4._MODIFICATIONS
6._5._COMBINING_DOCUMENTS
7._6._COLLECTIONS_OF_DOCUMENTS
8._7._AGGREGATION_WITH_INDEPENDENT_WORKS
9._8._TRANSLATION
10._9._TERMINATION
11._10._FUTURE_REVISIONS_OF_THIS_LICENSE
12._Addendum
1. Introduction
The LDP Review Project is a “working group†of the Linux_Documentation_Project,
whose goal is to improve the quality of the LDP's documentation. We are
approaching that goal from two different angles: a review of newly submitted
documentation, and a review of existing documentation. We are open to your
suggestions for improvement.
We have a mailing list established for editors; instructions to subscribe are
at http://www.tldp.org/mailinfo.html#maillists.
1.1. Copyright and License
This document is copyright 2001 by David C. Merrill, Ph.D., and copyright 2004
by Emma Jane Hogbin.
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the
terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.1 or any later version
published by the Free Software Foundation; with no invariant sections, no
front-cover texts and no back-cover texts. A copy of the license is included in
the section entitled “GNU Free Documentation Licenseâ€.
Send feedback to <discuss@en.tldp.org>. Please reference the title of this
document in your email.
1.2. Acknowledgements
The original version of this document was written in 2001 by Joy Yokley and
David C. Merrill, Ph.D.. Tabatha Marshall updated the content and converted the
document to DocBook XML in November 2003. Emma Jane Hogbin added the section on
Metadata and Markup Reviews in January 2004 and is the current maintainer of
the document.
2. Reviewing Newly Submitted Documentation
This review project will continue throughout the life of the LDP. The process
will act as a front-end quality assurance review for new documentation which is
submitted to the LDP. Ideally documents will be reviewed within one week of
their submission to the LDP.
Coordinators of this effort will announce to the list or notify individual
review members of new document submissions. The coordinators will try to funnel
documents to reviewers who have knowledge in the same technical area as the
documentation. If the reviewer is not a technical expert in that particular
area and needs technical questions answered, there will be a technical expert
designated who will be able to address any technical issues or questions.
Once reviewers have agreed to work on a document, they will have one week to
complete the review. If they are not able to complete the review within that
time frame, they will need to let the coordinator know of their difficulties so
that the author can be notified of the problem. Because these reviews need to
be conducted quickly, there will be times when reviewers will be more able to
accept review work.
When reviewing newly submitted documents, refer to the Section 5,_“Technical
Accuracy_Review†and Section 6,_“Language_Review†portions of this guide for
the types of information to verify and correct. As a reviewer, you will need to
check the documents out of the CVS [1] and make any necessary changes. If
changes are extensive or if the document has glaringly and fundamentally fatal
errors, contact a coordinator and let them know what the problems are. Once
changes are made, the reviewer will update the minor version number, add a new
entry to the revision history, and include their name as an “editor†of the
document. These changes will then be submitted to the CVS, and an original copy
will be sent to the author of the document if the author does not have CVS
access.
3. Reviewing Existing Documentation
This project will focus on reviewing documentation that already exists at the
LDP. Our goal is to implement a quality management program that makes sure we
are supplying up-to-date, accurate, easily read documentation. This process
will be ongoing throughout the life of the LDP. Initially, we will try to
review all documents currently on the LDP. Once we have made our way through
existing documents, we will schedule dates for follow-up reviews. By
continually reviewing the documents throughout their life at the LDP, we help
make sure readers have the best possible experience with Linux documentation.
In addition to the primary goal of improving the quality of the documentation
itself, we will also be gathering data about the collection for storage in some
sort of database to facilitate the ongoing management of the collection.
However, this stage of the review is still being defined; details about the
specifics and how this data will be measured will be added in the future.
Below are some general guidelines that you should follow before you begin
reviewing existing documentation for the LDP. Please try to have document
reviews completed within two weeks of the time you sign up to review a
document.
3.1. Choosing a Document
There are many documents that need review. The most important thing is that you
coordinate your work with the other reviewers. To coordinate the effort, we
have set up a mailing list for reviewers.
Notify the editor list (instructions for subscribing are at http://
www.tldp.org/mailinfo.html#maillists) before you begin to review a document. We
want to make sure your work is directed where it is most needed and where it
will be most useful. Of course, you may have a particular area of expertise and
that will dictate your choice to some extent. You can ask on the list for an
assignment, or you can select one for yourself and just let the mailing list
know what you're doing.
3.2. License Issues
Make sure you have the legal right to work on the document. If it is licensed
under a free license that specifically grants such rights, you are fine. If
not, you need to contact the author and get permission.
If you do not plan to actually change any of the content, but simply report on
the document's status, then you don't need permission, regardless of license.
Of course, it is still polite, and advisable, to write the author anyway.
If a document is missing a copyright and/or license, it's recommended you
advise the author to choose and apply one. More information on licensing is
available in Section 7,_“Metadata_and_Markup_Reviewâ€
3.3. Working With the Latest Version
Make sure the copy you are reviewing is the most current.
If your document includes a URL to an official homepage, visit that page and
see if it displays the same version number. If you find the same version
number, you are fine. If you find a newer version number, write to the author
and ask him or her to please submit the newer version to you.
3.4. Picking a Review to Conduct
There are many different ways a document can be reviewed, and you may have the
skills to do only one or two types of reviews. It is sometimes useful (and
easier) to do each review as a separate pass through the document; Your Mileage
May Vary.
The following sections explain the various types of reviews we are conducting.
Use these sections as a guide to help you choose the type of review to conduct
and to help you conduct the review itself. Again, when you post your review
choice to the review list, please specify the type of review you would like to
be responsible for.
4. Peer Review
When an author submits a new document to the LDP, someone monitoring the
submission email list will advise the author to post his draft to the
discussion list for an initial peer review, prior to publication. Besides
determining whether the document thoroughly covers the subject matter, peers
may also point out similar work already in the document collection, in which
case the new author might want to contact the maintainer of the existing work.
As a member of the review team, you will recognize a peer review document as
one the author has submitted to the discussion list, specifically requesting
feedback for inclusion of their HOWTO in the collection. This review can be
performed by anyone subscribed to the discussion list (www.tldp.org/
mailinfo.html#maillists).
5. Technical Accuracy Review
Make sure the facts as stated in the document are correct, helpful, and on
topic.
To do a technical accuracy review, you really need to know your subject matter,
probably as well or better than the original author. Use whatever other
documentation is available for your subject, including man pages, program
documentation, other printed books, etc. You might also use mailing lists on
the topic, asking for third parties to verify certain facts of which you are in
doubt.
When doing this type of review, consider if the information is only valid for
certain types of hardware or software. If this is the case, make sure to note
the limitations of the document within the document, either within the abstract
or as a note at the beginning of the document. For example, if the solutions in
the document only are relevant for one type or brand of hardware, make sure
that the limitation is defined. This will keep readers from trying to apply a
certain type of technology to an application or situation where it will not
work.
The same should apply for the prerequisite knowledge of the reader. If prior
knowledge of a subject is assumed or required, the author should say so
somewhere at the beginning of the document, and it's helpful to ask that
authors provide a Resource section for further reading, to bring readers that
much closer to the required information.
6. Language Review
Because writers come from all types of backgrounds, there may be problems
within the documentation that need to be fixed. Writers may be very
knowledgeable in their subject areas but not great writers, or they may be
excellent writers but not completely fluent in the language of the document.
The language review addresses these types of problems by focusing on language
issues that make the document easier for the user to read and understand. Some
of the problems that may occur within the document are poor sentence structure,
grammar, organization, clarity, and spelling.
If you are doing a language review, you should be fluent in the language and
the structure of the language. You want to consider both the logic and grammar
of the document. Your primary goal in a language review is to identify and
correct areas that could lead to confusion for the reader/user of the document.
To this end, you can most certainly use language and grammar references such as
dictionaries and handbooks when in doubt.
Although this review does address the structure and delivery of the language,
you should not attempt to purge the document of individuality and personality
in an attempt to make it "sound better" or more technical. Stilted, humorless
language and structures are not the goals here. Again, your goal should be to
make the document clear, unambiguous, and correct in spelling and grammar.
Items to evaluate:
* Spelling. Spelling should conform to a standardized English spelling of
terms. For words that are new to the language and not yet standardized (for
example technical Linux terminology that is generally accepted in the
community), follow the most common spelling for the term.
Note
Because there are two generally accepted forms of English, this review should
not privilege American English spellings over British English spellings, or
vice-versa. For example, if the author is writes British English and uses the
word “realise†you should not change the spelling of the word to “realizeâ€
just because you speak/write American English.
* Grammar. For the purposes of this review, grammar should address issues such
as standards of subject/verb agreement, pronoun/antecedent agreement, etc.
One of the common and confusing mistakes made in HOWTOs is unclear pronoun
antecedents.
For example, to say, “You will need to set several parameters in the config
file to make it compile correctly. The ones you choose to set make a big
difference.†In this example it sounds like the config file is what is
compiling and it takes a re-reading of the phrase for it to be clear that
“The ones†refers to the parameters.
Along these same lines, many authors writing for the LDP use smiley faces and
exclamation points where they would never be accepted in formal documentation
or grammar handbooks. The general rule to follow at this time is to leave the
smiley faces and gratuitous punctuation marks in place unless they interfere
with the reader's understanding of the concepts being explained. The
rationale behind this is to protect the more conversational tone of the LDP
documentation.
* Use of capital letters. The word “HOWTO†should always be in full caps with
no hyphen. The document's title and section headings may follow one of two
conventions, but must be consistent throughout. Titles may either capitalize
only the first word, or may capitalize each word. In the second case the only
words not capitalized in a title are prepositions, articles, and proper nouns
which would not be capitalized otherwise (for example: insmod). Other
capitalization should follow rules of standard English.
* Clarity. Judgements on clarity are sometimes difficult to make. One
successful strategy in evaluating clarity is asking the question “If I did
not already know this information, would the explanation be clear from this
document.†If it is confusing to you and you already generally understand
what the author is trying to say, then there is a good chance that the
explanation is really confusing for someone reading the document for the
first time. If you run across this situation, and you don't really know how
to correct the technical explanation, or you are afraid your changes might
affect the meaning of the document, ask for help from a technical expert. If
no technical expert is available or no one responds to your requests, note
the needed changes in the review and mark that these concerns need to be
addressed in the technical review.
* Organization. In some cases the document would really benefit from a
different structure. You should address these issues when they interfere with
the understanding of the information within the document. If a document gives
background information after a procedure has been performed, this may well be
too late for the reader to fully consider the information he or she needs
before performing the task. Look for document organization that might confuse
or mislead the reader. These will be the types of issues you want to address.
Once these are identified, it may be worthwhile to let the author know your
rationale and discuss major changes with him or her.
* Sentence Structure. To some extent, sentence structure issues are discussed
in the grammar section; however, there are some additional issues that are
not grammatically incorrect but do interfere with the readers comprehension
of the material. One of the most noticeable of these is stacked prepositional
phrases. Stacked prepositional phrases become a problem when the document's
readability suffers because it becomes less and less clear what the subject
and action of the sentence are. In some cases more precise descriptors are
needed or sentences need to be changed from one long sentence that is hard to
comprehend, to two or three more easily read sentences.
* Readability. This area is somewhat subjective. What passes for fairly
readable material to one person might be confusing to someone else. Because
this is a value judgement you should be cautious when marking up an author's
work for readability. Realize when basing a judgement on readability that you
might be dealing with preferences of style. At this point in time within the
LDP, there is no set style or stylistic rules that authors need to follow. In
evaluating readability you must consider whether or not the way the document
is written truly interferes with the readers understanding of the
information. If the answer you come up with is “No, but it doesn't sound like
I think it should.†then you should probably not re-write the text to make it
sound better to you.
* Title. The title should be in proper title case. The general principle for
this is that all words are capitalized in a title except prepositions and
articles (an article will be capitalized if it is the first word in the
title). The word HOWTO should be in all capital letters. There should be no
hyphens within the word HOWTO. The version should not be included in the
title.
* Date Formats. Dates should be in standard ISO format, which is YYYY-MM-DD.
* Uniform Use of Terms. Because the HOWTO you are reviewing is probably filled
with new information for the reader, it is important that the terms discussed
throughout the document be uniform. For example, referring to a part or
parameter in one section of the document by one name and then calling it by
another name (or an abbreviation that has not be explained) in another part
of the document is confusing for the reader. Making sure that terms are the
same throughout the document goes a long way in helping the reader understand
the documentation.
* Definitions of Acronyms or Slang. Terminology and language within the realm
of computer technology changes rapidly. In reviewing documents you may find
that many of the terms that are being discussed are not valid words in any
dictionary or technical reference that you are familiar with. In this case
you will need to search on terms and find if they are, in fact, terminology
that is accepted in the general Linux community. Terms that are less familiar
should be defined immediately following the first instance of the term. Slang
should be replaced with more common terminology if the slang will causes the
reader to be confused by the connotation or denotation of the term. Remember
that readers using the document may not come to English as a primary language
and, therefore, you should do your best to make sure that the document is as
easy to understand as possible.
* Latin abbreviations. Avoid using abbreviations. e.g. (for example), et al.
(and others), etc (and so on) and i.e. (that is) should always use the
English equivalent.
7. Metadata and Markup Review
The LDP uses a series of scripts to transform documents into their published
format. In order for these scripts to work, documents must use valid markup and
include specific metadata. Metadata is information about the document and
includes author information, copyright, license and a revision history of the
document.
At this time Metadata and Markup Reviews will be conducted by one of the Review
Coordinators and will be the final of the three reviews for new documents. Upon
successful completion of a Metadata and Markup Review, the Review Coordinator
will update the document's version number to 1.0 and submit the document for
publication in the collection.
7.1. Required Markup
Documents submitted to TLDP document repository must validate as one of the
following:
* DocBook XML version 4.2 (preferred), 4.1.2
* DocBook SGML version 4.2, 4.1 or 3.x
* LinuxDoc SGML
Authors are not required to submit documents in DocBook
Authors are not required to submit their initial document in one of the
required markup languages. A volunteer will be assigned to convert any document
which is not submitted in valid markup. Authors must maintain their documents
in one of the required formats. Help, of course, is available to authors. The
main goal of The Linux Documentation Project is to provide quality documents,
not to force authors to learn markup languages.
7.2. Required Metadata
The following elements are all required:
* articleinfo or bookinfo. If you are writing a shorter HOWTO (this will be
most documents) you will need to use an articleinfo, if you are writing a
longer guide you will need to use bookinfo.
* title. Every document must contain a short, descriptive title. It should be
reasonably unique; check other documents in the collection to make sure your
document's title is distinctive from all other documents. Although it is not
required, most “HOWTO†documents contain the word “HOWTO†in the title.
* abstract. A short description of your document must be included in the
abstract. This description is typically one or two sentences in length.
* author. Every document must have an author. If there are multiple authors,
you may use authorgroup. If the document was prepared by an organization with
no individual author, please use authorcorp instead.
* editor. Every new document must go through the review process and have a
technical, language and metadata/markup review editor listed. In some cases
two of the reviews may have been conducted by the same person. The name of
the editor and the version their review was conducted on should be included.
For more information about this markup, please read the notes in the Author
Guide's Markup_for_Metadata.
* pubdate. The date of publication for the document. The date should be in the
ISO standard of YYYY-MM-DD.
* copyright. Authors will always retain the copyright to any documents they
submit to the LDP. Although it is not required, a copyright notice may be
included. A license, however, is always required.
* Revision history (revhistory). A summary of revisions should be included in
the document. For more information about their markup, please read the notes
in the Author Guide's Markup_for_Metadata.
The initial release of a document should be marked up as Version 1.0.
Subsequent updates should increment the version number appropriately. The
preferred format is Major.Minor.Bugfix, where each section is an integer.
Some authors use Alan Cox style versions (for example 1.4pre-3) and some
include additional information (for example 1.3beta). This is acceptable but
not encouraged. The most important thing is that we have a version number so
we know which version we are dealing with! Once a document goes through
review it should advance in minor or bugfix version number, depending on the
amount of change introduced.
* License and Legal Notice. A license is required. The LDP currently accepts
documents which are licensed under the GFDL, Creative Commons License and the
LDP License. If you are using a license that is not listed it will need to be
reviewed by our volunteers before the document is accepted. The full text of
the license is required. A link is not sufficient. You may wish to include a
disclaimer as part of the legal notice. A standard disclaimer is available
from the Author Guide.
* email. The LDP must be able to reach any author of any document via email.
Email addresses should be included in the author tag, but may be included in
the DocBook source as a comment. Documents without email address will not be
accepted into the collection. If the LDP is unable to reach an author, the
document may be removed from the collection.
* Acknowledgements and Other Credits. Very few, if any, documents are written
only by one person. It is good form to thank those who helped you with either
the writing, research, testing or reviewing of your document. If someone
added markup, or translated your document to another language they should
also be given credit.
8. Reporting Your Results
Once you have completed your review of a document, you should send the updated
file and your results back to the Review Coordinator [2] , and advise the
working group you've completed the review. A summary of your findings should be
included in the body of the email. If the reviewer has access to the CVS, and
permission of the author to submit the changes directly, the reviewer may email
the Review Coordinator with only a summary of findings and a note that the
document was updated in the CVS.
If you have made any modifications to the document, also send your updates to
the author or maintainer, as well as the LDP submission list, which is at
submit@en.tldp.org. The subject line should be the title of the document. In
the body of your email, please include a note which says something to the
effect of, “I am a reviewer for the LDP and am submitting an updated copy of
this document on behalf of the author.â€
Note
Updates should not be sent to the discuss list.
A. GNU Free Documentation License
1. 0. PREAMBLE
The purpose of this License is to make a manual, textbook, or other written
document “free†in the sense of freedom: to assure everyone the effective
freedom to copy and redistribute it, with or without modifying it, either
commercially or noncommercially. Secondarily, this License preserves for the
author and publisher a way to get credit for their work, while not being
considered responsible for modifications made by others.
This License is a kind of “copyleftâ€, which means that derivative works of the
document must themselves be free in the same sense. It complements the GNU
General Public License, which is a copyleft license designed for free software.
We have designed this License in order to use it for manuals for free software,
because free software needs free documentation: a free program should come with
manuals providing the same freedoms that the software does. But this License is
not limited to software manuals; it can be used for any textual work,
regardless of subject matter or whether it is published as a printed book. We
recommend this License principally for works whose purpose is instruction or
reference.
2. 1. APPLICABILITY AND DEFINITIONS
This License applies to any manual or other work that contains a notice placed
by the copyright holder saying it can be distributed under the terms of this
License. The “Documentâ€, below, refers to any such manual or work. Any member
of the public is a licensee, and is addressed as “youâ€.
A “Modified Version†of the Document means any work containing the Document or
a portion of it, either copied verbatim, or with modifications and/or
translated into another language.
A “Secondary Section†is a named appendix or a front-matter section of the
Document that deals exclusively with the relationship of the publishers or
authors of the Document to the Document's overall subject (or to related
matters) and contains nothing that could fall directly within that overall
subject. (For example, if the Document is in part a textbook of mathematics, a
Secondary Section may not explain any mathematics.) The relationship could be a
matter of historical connection with the subject or with related matters, or of
legal, commercial, philosophical, ethical or political position regarding them.
The “Invariant Sections†are certain Secondary_Sections whose titles are
designated, as being those of Invariant Sections, in the notice that says that
the Document is released under this License.
The “Cover Texts†are certain short passages of text that are listed, as
Front-Cover Texts or Back-Cover Texts, in the notice that says that the
Document is released under this License.
A “Transparent†copy of the Document means a machine-readable copy,
represented in a format whose specification is available to the general public,
whose contents can be viewed and edited directly and straightforwardly with
generic text editors or (for images composed of pixels) generic paint programs
or (for drawings) some widely available drawing editor, and that is suitable
for input to text formatters or for automatic translation to a variety of
formats suitable for input to text formatters. A copy made in an otherwise
Transparent file format whose markup has been designed to thwart or discourage
subsequent modification by readers is not Transparent. A copy that is not
“Transparent†is called “Opaqueâ€.
Examples of suitable formats for Transparent copies include plain ASCII without
markup, Texinfo input format, LaTeX input format, SGML or XML using a publicly
available DTD, and standard-conforming simple HTML designed for human
modification. Opaque formats include PostScript, PDF, proprietary formats that
can be read and edited only by proprietary word processors, SGML or XML for
which the DTD and/or processing tools are not generally available, and the
machine-generated HTML produced by some word processors for output purposes
only.
The “Title Page†means, for a printed book, the title page itself, plus such
following pages as are needed to hold, legibly, the material this License
requires to appear in the title page. For works in formats which do not have
any title page as such, “Title Page†means the text near the most prominent
appearance of the work's title, preceding the beginning of the body of the
text.
3. 2. VERBATIM COPYING
You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially or
noncommercially, provided that this License, the copyright notices, and the
license notice saying this License applies to the Document are reproduced in
all copies, and that you add no other conditions whatsoever to those of this
License. You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading
or further copying of the copies you make or distribute. However, you may
accept compensation in exchange for copies. If you distribute a large enough
number of copies you must also follow the conditions in section_3.
You may also lend copies, under the same conditions stated above, and you may
publicly display copies.
4. 3. COPYING IN QUANTITY
If you publish printed copies of the Document numbering more than 100, and the
Document's license notice requires Cover_Texts, you must enclose the copies in
covers that carry, clearly and legibly, all these Cover Texts: Front-Cover
Texts on the front cover, and Back-Cover Texts on the back cover. Both covers
must also clearly and legibly identify you as the publisher of these copies.
The front cover must present the full title with all words of the title equally
prominent and visible. You may add other material on the covers in addition.
Copying with changes limited to the covers, as long as they preserve the title
of the Document and satisfy these conditions, can be treated as verbatim
copying in other respects.
If the required texts for either cover are too voluminous to fit legibly, you
should put the first ones listed (as many as fit reasonably) on the actual
cover, and continue the rest onto adjacent pages.
If you publish or distribute Opaque copies of the Document numbering more than
100, you must either include a machine-readable Transparent copy along with
each Opaque copy, or state in or with each Opaque copy a publicly-accessible
computer-network location containing a complete Transparent copy of the
Document, free of added material, which the general network-using public has
access to download anonymously at no charge using public-standard network
protocols. If you use the latter option, you must take reasonably prudent
steps, when you begin distribution of Opaque copies in quantity, to ensure that
this Transparent copy will remain thus accessible at the stated location until
at least one year after the last time you distribute an Opaque copy (directly
or through your agents or retailers) of that edition to the public.
It is requested, but not required, that you contact the authors of the Document
well before redistributing any large number of copies, to give them a chance to
provide you with an updated version of the Document.
5. 4. MODIFICATIONS
You may copy and distribute a Modified_Version of the Document under the
conditions of sections 2 and 3 above, provided that you release the Modified
Version under precisely this License, with the Modified Version filling the
role of the Document, thus licensing distribution and modification of the
Modified Version to whoever possesses a copy of it. In addition, you must do
these things in the Modified Version:
* A. Use in the Title_Page (and on the covers, if any) a title distinct from
that of the Document, and from those of previous versions (which should, if
there were any, be listed in the History section of the Document). You may
use the same title as a previous version if the original publisher of that
version gives permission.
* B. List on the Title_Page, as authors, one or more persons or entities
responsible for authorship of the modifications in the Modified_Version,
together with at least five of the principal authors of the Document (all of
its principal authors, if it has less than five).
* C. State on the Title_Page the name of the publisher of the Modified
Version, as the publisher.
* D. Preserve all the copyright notices of the Document.
* E. Add an appropriate copyright notice for your modifications adjacent to
the other copyright notices.
* F. Include, immediately after the copyright notices, a license notice giving
the public permission to use the Modified_Version under the terms of this
License, in the form shown in the Addendum below.
* G. Preserve in that license notice the full lists of Invariant_Sections and
required Cover_Texts given in the Document's license notice.
* H. Include an unaltered copy of this License.
* I. Preserve the section entitled “Historyâ€, and its title, and add to it an
item stating at least the title, year, new authors, and publisher of the
Modified_Versionas given on the Title_Page. If there is no section entitled
“History†in the Document, create one stating the title, year, authors, and
publisher of the Document as given on its Title Page, then add an item
describing the Modified Version as stated in the previous sentence.
* J. Preserve the network location, if any, given in the Document for public
access to a Transparent copy of the Document, and likewise the network
locations given in the Document for previous versions it was based on. These
may be placed in the “History†section. You may omit a network location for a
work that was published at least four years before the Document itself, or if
the original publisher of the version it refers to gives permission.
* K. In any section entitled “Acknowledgements†or “Dedicationsâ€, preserve the
section's title, and preserve in the section all the substance and tone of
each of the contributor acknowledgements and/or dedications given therein.
* L. Preserve all the Invariant_Sections of the Document, unaltered in their
text and in their titles. Section numbers or the equivalent are not
considered part of the section titles.
* M. Delete any section entitled “Endorsementsâ€. Such a section may not be
included in the Modified_Version.
* N. Do not retitle any existing section as “Endorsements†or to conflict in
title with any Invariant_Section.
If the Modified_Version includes new front-matter sections or appendices that
qualify as Secondary_Sections and contain no material copied from the Document,
you may at your option designate some or all of these sections as invariant. To
do this, add their titles to the list of Invariant_Sections in the Modified
Version's license notice. These titles must be distinct from any other section
titles.
You may add a section entitled “Endorsementsâ€, provided it contains nothing but
endorsements of your Modified_Version by various parties--for example,
statements of peer review or that the text has been approved by an organization
as the authoritative definition of a standard.
You may add a passage of up to five words as a Front-Cover_Text, and a passage
of up to 25 words as a Back-Cover_Text, to the end of the list of Cover_Texts
in the Modified_Version. Only one passage of Front-Cover Text and one of Back-
Cover Text may be added by (or through arrangements made by) any one entity. If
the Document already includes a cover text for the same cover, previously added
by you or by arrangement made by the same entity you are acting on behalf of,
you may not add another; but you may replace the old one, on explicit
permission from the previous publisher that added the old one.
The author(s) and publisher(s) of the Document do not by this License give
permission to use their names for publicity for or to assert or imply
endorsement of any Modified_Version.
6. 5. COMBINING DOCUMENTS
You may combine the Document with other documents released under this License,
under the terms defined in section_4 above for modified versions, provided that
you include in the combination all of the Invariant_Sections of all of the
original documents, unmodified, and list them all as Invariant Sections of your
combined work in its license notice.
The combined work need only contain one copy of this License, and multiple
identical Invariant_Sections may be replaced with a single copy. If there are
multiple Invariant Sections with the same name but different contents, make the
title of each such section unique by adding at the end of it, in parentheses,
the name of the original author or publisher of that section if known, or else
a unique number. Make the same adjustment to the section titles in the list of
Invariant Sections in the license notice of the combined work.
In the combination, you must combine any sections entitled “History†in the
various original documents, forming one section entitled “Historyâ€; likewise
combine any sections entitled “Acknowledgementsâ€, and any sections entitled
“Dedicationsâ€. You must delete all sections entitled “Endorsements.â€
7. 6. COLLECTIONS OF DOCUMENTS
You may make a collection consisting of the Document and other documents
released under this License, and replace the individual copies of this License
in the various documents with a single copy that is included in the collection,
provided that you follow the rules of this License for verbatim copying of each
of the documents in all other respects.
You may extract a single document from such a collection, and dispbibute it
individually under this License, provided you insert a copy of this License
into the extracted document, and follow this License in all other respects
regarding verbatim copying of that document.
8. 7. AGGREGATION WITH INDEPENDENT WORKS
A compilation of the Document or its derivatives with other separate and
independent documents or works, in or on a volume of a storage or distribution
medium, does not as a whole count as a Modified_Version of the Document,
provided no compilation copyright is claimed for the compilation. Such a
compilation is called an “aggregateâ€, and this License does not apply to the
other self-contained works thus compiled with the Document , on account of
their being thus compiled, if they are not themselves derivative works of the
Document. If the Cover_Text requirement of section_3 is applicable to these
copies of the Document, then if the Document is less than one quarter of the
entire aggregate, the Document's Cover Texts may be placed on covers that
surround only the Document within the aggregate. Otherwise they must appear on
covers around the whole aggregate.
9. 8. TRANSLATION
Translation is considered a kind of modification, so you may distribute
translations of the Document under the terms of section_4. Replacing Invariant
Sections with translations requires special permission from their copyright
holders, but you may include translations of some or all Invariant Sections in
addition to the original versions of these Invariant Sections. You may include
a translation of this License provided that you also include the original
English version of this License. In case of a disagreement between the
translation and the original English version of this License, the original
English version will prevail.
10. 9. TERMINATION
You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Document except as
expressly provided for under this License. Any other attempt to copy, modify,
sublicense or distribute the Document is void, and will automatically terminate
your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or
rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so
long as such parties remain in full compliance.
11. 10. FUTURE REVISIONS OF THIS LICENSE
The Free_Software_Foundation may publish new, revised versions of the GNU Free
Documentation License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in
spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems
or concerns. See http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/.
Each version of the License is given a distinguishing version number. If the
Document specifies that a particular numbered version of this License “or any
later version†applies to it, you have the option of following the terms and
conditions either of that specified version or of any later version that has
been published (not as a draft) by the Free Software Foundation. If the
Document does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any
version ever published (not as a draft) by the Free Software Foundation.
12. Addendum
To use this License in a document you have written, include a copy of the
License in the document and put the following copyright and license notices
just after the title page:
Copyright © YEAR YOUR NAME.
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document
under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.1 or
any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with the
Invariant_Sections being LIST THEIR TITLES, with the Front-Cover
Texts being LIST, and with the Back-Cover_Texts being LIST. A copy of
the license is included in the section entitled “GNU Free
Documentation Licenseâ€.
If you have no Invariant_Sections, write “with no Invariant Sections†instead
of saying which ones are invariant. If you have no Front-Cover_Texts, write “no
Front-Cover Texts†instead of “Front-Cover Texts being LISTâ€; likewise for
Back-Cover_Texts.
If your document contains nontrivial examples of program code, we recommend
releasing these examples in parallel under your choice of free software
license, such as the GNU_General_Public_License, to permit their use in free
software.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1]Alternatively, if you've obtained the file from the Review Coordinator, or
are unfamiliar with CVS, you can return the changes to the coordinator for
further handling.
[2]The LDP is currently filtering documents back through the Review Coordinator
until a document management system is implemented, allowing for review notes to
be stored with the file in a database record.