GNU.WIKI: The GNU/Linux Knowledge Base

  [HOME] [HowTo] [ABS] [MAN1] [MAN2] [MAN3] [MAN4] [MAN5] [MAN6] [MAN7] [MAN8] [MAN9]


Linux Documentation Project Reviewer HOWTO

Emma Jane Hogbin

[] xtrinsic


David Merrill


Joy Yokley


Revision History                                                             
Revision 1.4.2            2004-05-24           Revised by: EJH               
Corrected spelling mistakes.                                                 
Revision 1.4.1            2004-04-19           Revised by: 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           Revised by: EJH               
Updated the language review: clarified use of capitals, and added a new      
requirement that Latin abbreviations always use their English counterpart    
Revision 1.3              2004-01-31           Revised by: EJH               
Added the metadata and markup review information.                            
Revision 1.2              2003-11-09           Revised by: TMM               
Updated content, URLs, mailing lists, converted to XML.                      
Revision 1.1              2001-05-12           Revised by: DCM               
Minor bugfixes.                                                              
Revision 1.0              2001-05-01           Revised by: jy                
Initial release.                                                             

This document will help you review LDP documentation. It includes procedures
and techniques for the review process of all new, and existing, LDP

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
    A.1. 0. PREAMBLE
    A.10. 9. TERMINATION
    A.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

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 License".

Send feedback to <>. 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 and Section
6 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

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:// 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

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

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

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 ([

5. Technical Accuracy Review

Make sure the facts as stated in the document are correct, helpful, and on

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 that 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 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 "realize" 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
��*�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
��*�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

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

��*�  DocBook XML version 4.2 (preferred), 4.1.2
��*�  DocBook SGML version 4.2, 4.1 or 3.x
��*�  LinuxDoc SGML

Warning 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 [
    metadata-markup.html] 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 [
    metadata-markup.html] 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 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."

Note Updates should not be sent to the discuss list.                         

A. GNU Free Documentation License


  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 "copyleft", 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

  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.


  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 "Document", below, refers to any such manual or work.
Any member of the public is a licensee, and is addressed as "you".

  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 "Opaque".

  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.


  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.


  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.


  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 "History", and its title, and add to it
    an item stating at least the title, year, new authors, and publisher of
    the Modified Version as 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
��*�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 "Dedications", 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
��*�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 "Endorsements". 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 "Endorsements", 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

  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 .


  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 "History"; likewise
combine any sections entitled "Acknowledgements", and any sections entitled 
"Dedications". You must delete all sections entitled "Endorsements."


  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.


  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 "aggregate", 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.


  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.


  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.


  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://

  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.

A.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
  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 LIST";
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


[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.       

  All copyrights belong to their respective owners. Other site content (c) 2014, GNU.WIKI. Please report any site errors to