Request response pages contain a lot of text (some of it redundant or unimportant), suggestions to make it more clearly arranged

[ghost]

If you look at this page:

http://oscad.fodina.de/fileadmin/php/oscad.php?FocusType=snimoli&FocusContext=independent&FocusState=unmodified&FocusRecipient=2others&FocusForm=binaries&submit=submit&FocusLicense=GPLv2.0

You will notice that the information on the top is a bit redundant.
Basically, there is three times very similar information: "Request" (exactly what I entered), "OSUC-05B" (the layman's words of how it was interpreted EDIT: more like Use case classification I guess?), "connotes" (the exact words of how it was interpreted in context of the license).

However, the user will usually not care too much about the multiple interpretations, but mainly about what they needs to do to comply with the license. The connotation bit especially is also a bit hard to understand on first read and it's not obvious it isn't vital, and the "OSUC-05B" seems a bit redundant since it's very close to the original "Request".

My suggestions would be the following:

• Turn "OSUC-05B" into "Interpretation of request in practical terms" or "Use case" or something similar. Give it a nice, clear title. Then, consider turning it into some sort of clickable expandable thing, and having it unexpanded per default.

(Personal comment: it does seem a bit redundant to the "Request" bit quite frankly - the whole "OSUC-05B" section. While I understand it probably reflects the categorization in the database/PDF in terms of use cases, does the user really need to know this prominently? It would more seem to be relevant for the Background Information below. Why put it so prominently at the top?)

• Turn the connotation thing into "Interpretation of the request in the context of the GPLv2/GPLv3" (yes that is similar, but without the cryptic =[..|..] syntax and w.r.t. wording) or some similar simpler wording. I would also suggest considering having it unexpanded per default.

(Personal comment: this one seems a bit less redundant but still not vital. The wording is a bit cryptic and it's not really BADLY needed and not what the user is mainly interested in as a response, so I suggest making it at least an expandable item.)

• Drop references like "[=GPL-C3]", "OSUC-05B" generally in all text or if you must keep them, turn them into a link that goes to a table with all of them listed with a short description of what those things actually mean.

(Personal comment: those classifiers seem possibly useful, but in the middle of the regular text they just seem confusing especially since they're not like, linked to any explanation or similar stuff. I would assemble all those classifiers into the "Background information" section below and just keep them out of the actual response text on top)

Regarding the "background information" text:

It would be awesome if "OSUC-05B" was clickable by itself or at least the section and lead to some sort of table or at least the section in the whole oslic text - which brings me to the next question:

You have some nice classifications for those in the Oslic PDF. Why just there? I get having a printable version is nice, but as an easily reachable and searchable main reference in form of a linkable sort of table on a website where you can then refer people to the exact section (with an actual hyperlink to the place) would seem very useful to me. (without requiring people to download a pdf and scroll around when you're referring them to a section or classification)

The PDF really only seems to be a good idea if you want to read up on all use cases at once, and many people will mainly be interested in their own classification first, and only secondarily in reading up on all the other possible situations. A PDF just isn't as searchable and fast to jump around to what you actually want to know as a web page.

Edit: sorry for the many edits, I clarified some tiny bits