The IFA Corpus: a Phonemically Segmented Dutch 
"Open Source" Speech Database
R.J.J.H. van Son1, Diana Binnenpoorte2, Henk van den Heuvel2, and Louis C.W. Pols1
1Institute of Phonetic Sciences (IFA) / ACLC, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands
2SPEX/A2RT, Nijmegen University, the Netherlands
Rob.van.Son@hum.uva.nl

Abstract
An open source database of hand-segmented Dutch speech was constructed with off-the-shelf software using speech from 8 speakers in a variety of speaking styles. For a total of 50,000 words, speech acquisition and preparation took around 3 person-weeks per speaker. Hand segmentation took 1,000 hours of labeling altogether. The asymptotic segmentation speed was about one word, or four boundaries, per minute. An evaluation showed that the Median Absolute Difference of the segment boundaries was 6 ms between labelers, and 4 ms within labelers. Label differences (substitutions, insertions, and deletions) were found in 8% of the segments between labelers and 5% within labelers. Compiled data are available in relational database format for querying with SQL.
1.Introduction
More and more large speech databases are becoming available for speech research and commercial R&D ([6], e.g., [3], [5], [10], [12], [13], [15]). However, the speech corpora currently available (e.g., Switchboard, Speechdat, RM) typically are collected through telephone networks ([5], [6]), have only a limited number of styles, use many speakers only once, and are not segmented at phoneme level (c.f., [5], [6], [10]). Furthermore, they tend to be expensive. What is typically needed for phonetic research is: phonemic (or phonetic) transcription and segmentation, broadband recording, and a lot of speech from each speaker. Also, (re-)distribution should be free. Currently, for Dutch a few speech corpora exist which more or less approximate these requirements: the Groningen corpus [6], EUROM [16], and the Spoken Dutch Corpus (CGN) [12], [13]. However, the first two have only limited speech styles and the latter is not ready yet. None of these corpora have phonemic segmentation, nor are the same speakers recorded in many styles. This dearth of segmented corpora for Dutch can be replicated for almost any other language. Whether or not segmented speech corpora are generally available depends on personal initiatives of individual researchers (c.f., [3], [15]).
One of the reasons hand-segmented speech corpora are lacking is the perceived costs of creating them. These costs are almost completely determined by the segmentation effort. For a limited number of speakers, the cost of recording informal and read speech in the laboratory is not prohibitive. Text preparations, recording, orthographic transliteration, automatic phonemic transcription, and an automatic alignment with a "standard" HMM speech recognizer can all be handled in less than 3 person-weeks per speaker involving about 90 minutes mixed style speech per speaker. However, an expensive "hand-correction" of the segmentation is needed before a corpus can be used for phonetics research. The received opinion is that the hand-alignment of phonemes costs (much) more than the preceding factors combined. In this paper we would like to introduce the IFA corpus and present some experience-based facts about the costs and benefits of hand-segmented corpora to help making informed decisions.
2.Corpus purpose
In the context of a phonetics project on the factors influencing intra-speaker variation of speech we had a need for a labeled and segmented corpus with broadband Dutch speech, with speech in a variety of styles (e.g., informal, read, isolated words). It was decided to construct a "reusable", general purpose, 50,000 word corpus. This was seen as a good opportunity to study the real costs and trade-offs involved in the construction of a corpus of hand-segmented speech to benefit future projects (e.g., the INTAS project [4], [13]).
Access and distribution of the available large databases are quickly becoming a problem. For instance, the complete Spoken Dutch Corpus (CGN [12], [13]), containing a wide range of speaking styles and speakers, will, for the time being, be distributed on about 175 CD-ROMs, making on-site management a real challenge. The history of database projects in the sciences (e.g., biology) shows that most users treat these corpora as "on-line libraries" where they look for specific information (c.f., [2]). Most queries are directed towards compiled data, not towards raw data. Many journals (e.g., Nature [9]) also require that raw and compiled data underlying publications be made available through a publicly accessible database. We can expect developments in a similar direction in speech and language research. 
From the experiences in the sciences, some general principles for the construction and management of large corpora can be distilled that were taken as the foundation of the architecture of the IFA corpus: 
•Access should be possible using a powerful query language [2], [3]
•Basic data should be available in compiled form
•Internet access is indispensable
•"Reviewed" user contributions should be stimulated and incorporated
3.Corpus construction
•3.1. Speakers
Speakers were selected at the Institute of Phonetic Sciences in Amsterdam (IFA) and consisted mostly of staff and students. Non-staff speakers were paid. In total 18 speakers (9 male, 9 female) completed both recording sessions. All speakers were mother-tongue speakers and none reported speaking or hearing problems. Recordings of 4 women and 4 men were selected for phonemic segmentation, based on distribution of sex and age, and the quality of the recordings. The ages of the selected speakers ranges from 15 to 66 years of age (Table 1).
Table 1: Corpus contents (excluding empty and filled pauses). Printed are the number of items. The segmented items are a subset of the recorded items. S: Sentences and sentence-sized collections, W: Words, Sy: Syllables, Ph: Phonemes.
	Speaker	 Recorded	Segmented	
	sex/age	S	W	S	W	Sy	Ph	
	N F/20	1078	11013	727	7644	11108	28043	
	G F/28	832	10944	806	10315	14683	36807	
	L F/40	640	 8753	542	6882	10087	25344	
	E F/60	873	11246	712	8654	12896	32715	
	R M/15	655	7106	453	4621	6560	16015	
	K M/40	602	7667	400	4610	6577	15971	
	H M/56	675	 8101	536	6444	9039	23190	
	O M/66	773	 8237	316	2612	3752	9459	
	all	6128	73067	4492	51782	74702	187544	

Each speaker filled in a form with information on personal data (sex, age), socio-linguistic background (e.g., place of birth, primary school, secondary school), socio-economic background (occupation and education of parents), physiological data (weight/height, smoking, alcohol consumption, medication), and data about relevant experience and training.
•3.2. Speaking styles
Eight speaking "styles" were recorded from each speaker (Table 2). From informal to formal these were:
1.Informal story telling face-to-face to an "interviewer" (I)
2.Retelling a previously read narrative story without sight contact (R)
And reading aloud:
3.A narrative story (T)
4.A random list of all sentences of the narrative stories (S)
5."Pseudo-sentences" constructed by replacing all words in a sentence with randomly selected words from the text with the same POS tag (PS)
6.Lists of selected words from the texts (W)
7.Lists of all distinct syllables from the word lists (Sy)
8.A collection of idiomatic (the Alphabet, the numbers 0‑12) and "diagnostic" sequences (isolated vowels, /hVd/ and /VCV/ lists) (Pr)
The last style was presented in a fixed order, all other lists (S, PS, W, Sy) were (pseudo-)randomized for each speaker before presentation.
Each speaker read aloud from two separate text collections based on narrative texts. During the first recording session, each speaker read from the same two texts (Fixed text type). These texts were based on the Dutch version of "The north wind and the sun" [14], and on a translation of the fairy tale "Jorinde und Joringel" [8]. During the second session, each speaker read from texts based on the informal story told during the first recording session (Variable text type). A non-overlapping selection of words was made from each text type (W). Words were selected to maximize coverage of phonemes and diphones and also included the 50 most frequent words from the texts. The word lists were automatically transcribed into phonemes using a simple CELEX [17] word list lookup and were split into syllables. The syllables were transcribed back into a pseudo-orthography which was readable for Dutch subjects (Sy). The 70 "pseudo-sentences" (PS) were based on the Fixed texts and corrected for syntactic number and gender. They were "semantically unpredictable" and only marginally grammatical.
Table 2: Distribution of segmented words per speaker over speaking styles (I-Pr, see text). Silent and filled pauses are excluded. Last two rows show the corresponding mean articulation rate per sentence in syllables/s (Sy) and phonemes/s (Ph).
Sp	I	R	T	S	PS	W	Sy	Pr	
N	660	385	2427	2850	412	262	292	356	
G	1850	1639	2761	2868	206	230	290	470	
L	885	465	2126	2078	423	239	274	387	
E	933	1178	2556	2765	215	261	313	432	
R	127	323	1348	1449	451	232	268	423	
K	538	435	1354	1346	-	248	275	415	
H	269	658	2005	2081	435	259	286	451	
O	-	1173	-	-	466	253	284	436	
all	5262	6256	14577	15437	2608	1984	2282	3370	
Sy	5.5	5.2	5.7	5.6	4.6	3.5	2.4	3.5	
Ph	13.5	13.1	14.4	14.3	12.2	9.3	6.7	6.3	

•3.3. Recording equipment and procedure
Speech was recorded in a quiet, sound treated room. Recording equipment and a cueing computer were in a separated control room. Two-channel recordings were made with a head-mounted dynamic microphone (Shure SM10A) on one channel and a fixed HF condenser microphone (Sennheiser MKH 105) on the other. Recording was done directly to a Philips Audio CD-recorder, i.e., 16 bit linear coding at 44.1 kHz stereo. A standard sound source (white noise and pure 400 Hz tone) of 78 dB was recorded from a fixed position relative to the fixed microphone to be able to mark the recording level. The head mounted microphone did not allow precise repositioning between sessions, and was even known to move during the sessions (which was noted).
On registration, speakers were given a sheet with instructions and the text of the two fixed stories. They were asked to prepare the texts for reading aloud. On the first recording session, they were seated facing an "interviewer" (at approximately one meter distance). The interviewer explained the procedure, verified personal information from a response sheet and asked the subject to tell about a vacation trip (style I). After that, the subject was seated in front of a sound-treated computer screen (the computer itself was in the control room). Reading materials were displayed in large font sizes on the screen.
After the first session, the subject was asked to divide into sentences and paragraphs a verbal transcript of the informal story told. Hesitations, repetitions, incomplete words, and filled pauses had been removed from the verbal transcript to allow fluent reading aloud. No attempts were made to "correct" the grammar of the text. Before the second session, the subject was asked to prepare the text for reading aloud. In the second session, the subject read the transcript of the informal story, told in the first session.
The order of recording was: Face-to-face story-telling (I, first session), idiomatic and diagnostic text (Pr, read twice), full texts in paragraph sized chunks (T), isolated sentences (S), isolated pseudo-sentences (PS, second session), words (W) and syllables (Sy) in blocks of ten, and finally, re-telling of the texts read before (R).
•3.4. Speech preparation, file formats, and compatibility
The corpus discussed in this paper is constructed according to the recommendations of [6], [7]. Future releases will conform to the Open Languages Archives [1]. Speech recordings were transferred directly from CD-audio to computer hard-disks and divided into "chunks" that correspond to full cueing screen reading texts where this was practical (I, T, Pr) or complete "style recordings" where divisions would be impractical (S, PS, W, Sy, R).
Each paragraph-sized audio-file was written out in orthographic form conform to [7]. Foreign words, variant and unfinished pronunciations were all marked. Clitics and filled pause sounds were transcribed in their reduced orthographic form (e.g., 't, 'n, d'r, uh). A phonemic transcription was made by a lookup from a CELEX word list, the pronunciation lexicon. Unknown words were hand-transcribed and added to the list. In case of ambiguity, the most normative transcription was chosen.
The chunks were further divided by hand into sentence-sized single channel files for segmenting and labeling (16 bit linear, 44.1 kHz, single-channel). These sentence-sized files contained real sentences from the text and sentence readings and the corresponding parts of the informal story telling. The retold stories were divided into sentences (preferably on pauses and clear intonational breaks, but also on "syntax"). False starts of sentences were split off as separate sentences. Word and syllable lists were divided, corresponding to a single cueing screen of text. The practice text was divided corresponding to lines of text (except for the alphabet, which was taken as an integral piece). Files with analyses of pitch, intensity, formants, and first spectral moment (center of gravity) are also available.
Audio recordings are available in AIFC format (16 bit linear, 44.1 kHz sample rate), longer pieces are also available in a compressed format (Ogg Vorbis). The segmentation results are stored in the (ASCII) label-file format of the Praat program (http://www.praat.org).
Label files are organized around hierarchically nested descriptive levels: phonemes, demi-syllables, syllables, words, sentences, paragraphs. Each level consists of one or more synchronized tiers that store the actual annotations (e.g., lexical words, phonemic transcriptions). The system allows an unlimited number of synchronized tiers from external files to be integrated with these original data (e.g., POS, lexical frequency).
Compiled data are extracted from the label files and stored in (compressed) tab-delimited plain text tables (ASCII). Entries are linked across tables with unique item (row) identifiers as proposed by [11]. Item identifiers contain pointers to recordings and label files. 
4.Phonemic labeling and segmentation
By labeling and segmentation we mean 1. defining the phoneme (phoneme transcription) and 2. marking the start and end point of each phoneme (segmentation).
•4.1. Procedure
The segmentation routine of an 'off-the-shelf' phone based HMM automatic speech recognizer (ASR) was used to time-align the speech files with a (canonical) phonemic transcription by using the Viterbi alignment algorithm. This produced an initial phone segmentation. The ASR was originally trained on 8 kHz telephone speech of phonetically rich sentences and deployed on downsampled speech files from the corpus. These automatically generated phoneme labels and boundaries were checked and adjusted by human transcribers (labelers) on the original speech files. To this end seven students were recruited, three males and four females. None of them were phonetically trained. This approach was considered justified since:
•phoneme transcriptions without diacritics were used, a derivation of the SAMPA set, so this task was relatively simple;
•naive persons were considered to be more susceptible to our instructions, so that more uniform and consistent labeling could be achieved; phonetically trained people are more inclined to stick to their own experiences and assumptions.
All labelers obtained a thorough training in phoneme labeling and the specific protocol that was used. The labeling was based on 1. auditory perception, 2. the waveform of the speech signal, and 3. the first spectral moment (the spectral center of gravity curve). The first spectral moment highlights important acoustic events and is easier to display and "interpret" by naive labelers than the more complex spectrograms. An on-line version of the labeling protocol could be consulted by the labelers at any time.
Sentences for which the automatic segmentation failed were generally skipped. Only in a minority of cases (5.5% of all files) the labeling was carried out from scratch, i.e. starting from only the phoneme transcription without any initial segmentation. The labelers worked for maximally 12 hours a week and no more than 4 hours a day. These restrictions were imposed to avoid RSI and errors due to tiredness.
Nearly all transcribers reached their optimum labeling speed after about 40 transcription hours. This top speed varied between 0.8 and 1.2 words per minute, depending on the transcriber and the complexity of the speech. Continuous speech appeared to be more difficult to label than isolated words, because it deviated more from the "canonical" automatic transcription due to substitutions and deletions, and, therefore, required more editing.
•4.2. Testing the consistency of labeling
Utterances were initially labeled only once. In order to test the consistency and validity of the labeling, 64 files were selected for verification on segment boundaries and phonemic labels by four labelers each. These 64 files all had been labeled originally by one of these four labelers so within- as well as between-labeler consistency could be checked. Files were selected from the following speaking styles: fixed wordlist (W), fixed sentences (S), variable wordlist (W) and (variable) informal sentences (I). The number of words in each file was roughly the same. None of the chosen files had originally been checked at the start or end of a 4 hour working day to diminish habituation errors as well as errors due to tiredness. The boundaries were automatically compared by aligning segments pair-wise by DTW. Due to limitations of the DTW algorithm, the alignment could go wrong, resulting in segment shifts. Therefore, differences larger tan 100 ms were removed.
5.Results and discussion
The contents of the corpus at its first release are described in Tables 1 and 2. A grand total of 52 kWords (excluding filled pauses) were hand segmented from a total of 73 kWords that were recorded (70%). The amount of speech recorded for each speaker varied due to variation in "long-windedness" and thus in the length of the informal stories told (which were the basis of the Variable text type). Coverage of the recordings is restricted by limitations of the automatic alignment and the predetermined corpus size.
In total, the ~50,000 words were labeled in ~1,000 hours, yielding an average of about 0.84 words per minute. In total, 200,000 segment boundaries were checked, which translates into 3.3 boundaries a minute. Only 7,000 segment boundaries (3.5%) could not be resolved and had to be removed by the labelers (i.e., marked as invalid).
The test of labeler consistency (section 4.2) showed a Median Absolute Difference between labelers of 6 ms, 75% was smaller than 15 ms, and 95% smaller than 46 ms. Pair-wise comparisons showed 3% substitutions and 5% insertions/deletions between labelers. For the intra-speaker re-labeling validation, the corresponding numbers are: a Median Absolute Difference of 4 ms, 75% was smaller than 10 ms, and 95% smaller than 31 ms. Re-labeling by the same labeler resulted in less than 2% substitutions and 3% insertions/deletions. These numbers are within acceptable boundaries [6] (sect. 5.2).
Regular checks of labeling performance showed that labelers had difficulties with:
1.The voiced-voiceless distinction in obstruents
2.The phoneme /S/ which was mostly kept as /s-j/; this was the canonical transcription given by CELEX
3."Removing" boundaries between phonemes when they could not be resolved. Too much time was spent putting a boundary where this was impossible. 
Using the compiled data tables fed into a PostgreSQL database allows to answer rather intricate questions. For instance, table 2 shows that, counter-intuitively, the articulation rates do not differ substantially between communicative speaking styles (I, R, T, S), but only for non-communicative styles (PS, W, Sy, Pr). Even fairly complicated questions, like comparing the durations of /m/ and /n/ in stressed syllables from spontaneous speech with respect to position in the word, ignoring sentence boundaries, becomes typing in a few commands, (e.g., /m/ vs. /n/ in ms, Initial: 71 vs. 63; Medial: 72 vs. 66; Final: 87 vs. 78).
6.Conclusions
A valuable hand-segmented speech database has been constructed in only 6 months of labeling, with 6 person-months of staff time for speech preparation and 1,000 hours of labeler time altogether. A powerful query language (SQL) allows comprehensive access to all relevant data.
This corpus is freely available and accessible on-line (. Use and distribution is allowed under the GNU General Public License (an Open Source License, see http://). Direct access to an SQL server (PostgreSQL) is available as well as a simplified WWW front end. On-line, up-to-date, access to non-speech data is handled by a version management system (CVS).
7.Acknowledgments
Copyrights for this corpus, databases, and associated software belong to the Dutch Language Union (Nederlandse Taalunie). This work was made possible by grant nr. 355-75-001 of the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) and a grant from the Dutch "Stichting Spraaktechnologie". We thank Alice Dijkstra and Monique van Donzel of the NWO and Elisabeth D'Halleweijn of the Dutch Language Union for their practical advice and organizational support. Elisabeth D'Halleweijn also supplied the legal forms used for this corpus. Barbertje Streefkerk constructed the CELEX pronunciation list used for the automatic transcription.
8.References
[1]Bird, S., and Simons, G. "The open languages archives community", Elsnews 9.4, winter 2000-01, 3-5, 2001.
[2]Birney, E., Bateman, A., Clamp, M.E., and Hubbard, T.J. "Mining the draft human genome", Nature 409, 827-828, 2001.
[3]Cassidy, S. "Compiling multi-tiered speech databases into the relational model: Experiments with the EMU system", Proceedings of EUROSPEECH99, Budapest, 2239-2242, 2001.
[4]De Silva, V. "Spontaneous speech of typologically unrelated languages (Russian, Finnish and Dutch): Comparison of phonetic properties", INTAS proposal, 2000.
[5]Elenius, K. "Two Swedish speechdat databases - some experiences and results", Proceedings of EUROSPEECH99, Budapest, 2243-2246, 1999.
[6]Gibbon, D., Moore, R., and Winski, R. (eds.) "Handbook of standards and resources for spoken language systems", Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin, New York, 1997.
[7]Goedertier, W., Goddijn, S., and Martens, J.-P., "Orthographic transcription of the Spoken Dutch Corpus", Proceedings of LREC-2000, Athens, Vol. 2, 909-914, 2000.
[8]Grimm, J. and Grimm W. "Kinder- und Hausmaerchen der Brueder Grimm", 1857 (http://maerchen.com/)
[9]"Human Genomes, public and private", Editorial, Nature 409, 745, 2001.
[10]Matsui, T, Naito, M., Singer, H., Nakamura, A., and Sagisaka, Y, "Japanese spontaneous speech database with wide regional and age distribution", Proceedings of EUROSPEECH99, Budapest, 2251-2254, 1999.
[11]Mengel, A., and Heid, U., "Enhancing reusability of speech corpora by hyperlinked query output", Proceedings of EUROSPEECH99, Budapest, 2703-2706, 1999.
[12]Oostdijk, N., "The Spoken Dutch Corpus, overview and first evaluation", Proceedings of LREC-2000, Athens, Vol. 2, 887-894, 2000.
[13]Pols, L.C.W., "The 10-million-words Spoken Dutch Corpus and its possible use in experimental phonetics", Proceedings Int. Symp. on '100 Years of experimental phonetics in Russia', St. Petersburg, 141-145, 2001.
[14]"The principles of the International Phonetic Association", London, 1949.
[15]Williams, B., "A Welsh speech database: Preliminary results", Proceedings of EUROSPEECH99, Budapest, 2283-2286, 1999.
[16]Chan, D., Fourcin, A., Gibbon, D., et al. "EUROM - A spoken language resource for the EU", Proceedings EUROSPEECH95, 867-870, 1995.
[17]Burnage, G. "CELEX - A Guide for Users." Nijmegen: Centre for Lexical Information, University of Nijmegen. 1990.

Copyright ©  2001  R.J.J.H. van Son, Diana Binnenpoorte, Henk van den Heuvel, and Louis C.W. Pols.

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, with no Front-Cover Texts , and with no Back-Cover Texts. 
A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License" below.

GNU Free Documentation License
   Version 1.1, March 2000

 Copyright © 2000  Free Software Foundation, Inc.
     59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA  02111-1307  USA
 Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
 of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.

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 “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 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.

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 “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.

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.

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.

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 “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 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 “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 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 “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 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.

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

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 distribute 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.

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 “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.

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.

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.

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.

ADDENDUM: How to use this License for your documents

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 (c)  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 License”.

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 software.