Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

OSDDP: Involving Students With Open Source Docs

Posted by timothy on from the hey-look-they're-adding-to-the-commonwealth dept.

cel4145 writes "The Professional Writing Program at Purdue University recently began the Open Source Development and Documentation Project (OSDDP) where students and instructors across multiple sections of business and technical writing are producing documentation for and about open source applications (see the press release or a mirror). The community and project are modeled after the open source development model and based on service learning principles. For example, students are already working on end user documentation and case study analysis for Drupal and market research and analysis for OpenOffice. Completed texts will be published using a Creative Commons license."

31 of 116 comments (clear)

  1. License by Pan+T.+Hose · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Does anyone know why the Creative Commons license was used instead if the GNU Free Documentation License? Are those licenses compatible? For example, would it be possible to made that work available on Wikibooks and parts of that documentation incorporated into relevant Wikipedia articles? I hope so, becuase it is going to be a magnificent project and Wikipedia is a central respository of free knowledge today.

    --
    Sincerely,
    Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
    "Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
    1. Re:License by TAGmclaren · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Because Lawrence Lessig is cool Stanford Professor that argued in front of the Supreme Court about copyright extensions, and Richard Stallman is hippy-looking MIT drop-out that argues with geeks about Linux really being GNU/Linux? :)

      Related to topic (and more related to my field of study) is the question of journal articles. Most journals are contributed to by academics, and the academics don't get paid to write in the journals. However, the journals are copyrighted to the teeth, and for an academic/researcher/scientist trying to get access to the journals you have to pay.

      That seems like quite an outdated method to me, but it hangs on because of the prestige associated with the older journals (MISQ is a big one in Information Systems). I hope to soon see some prestigious journals coming along with something like a creative commons license, or even better (though much less likely for financial reasons), a big journal swapping all their content over to creative commons.

      It just seems ludicrous that these publishers, who no longer serve a purpose, get paid as the gatekeepers to knowledge in so many fields when it would otherwise be free. Most of the Editors of the Journals are luminaries that get paid nothing, and the contributors to the field get paid nothing as well. With web access meaning you can hit a huge audience virtually instantly at a low cost, why not free the information?

      --
      Iran has endorsed
    2. Re:License by a_n_d_e_r_s · · Score: 2, Informative

      There is not ONE Creative Commons license, there are many Creative Common licenses. Some are more like a BSD style license than an GPL.

      That is they are more free.

      --
      Just saying it like it are.
    3. Re:License by metlin · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually that is not necessarily always true lately.

      For instance, these days submissions in Physics happen by people writing a paper, and uploading it to arXiv -- where it gets peer reviewed and you get inputs. And more importantly, you establish in public that you were the first person to come up with FOO.

      Not only that, the process is a lot more open than it used to be. Although some J Random dude at Physical Review can (and will) reject your paper for unknown reasons, it's quite unlikely that would happen if it has received excellent reviews after it's put up at arXiv. The process is a whole lot more transparent.

      And since only the final editions go to the journals, the paper is still available at arXiv. And arXiv has been working on making several other publications available online - however, this has only begun for papers from and after 1992, so that is indeed a problem.

      However, although arXiv does have a CS section, it's not frequented as much as the physics or mathematics sections. Which is a sad thing, IMHO.

      And oh btw, in arXiv - the authors own the copyrights, so no question of the journal asking the arXiv to retract the papers. In fact, sometimes authors post their papers after acceptance for a journal publication.

      Not too sure about conference publications, though.

  2. Pros and Cons by fembots · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I can see a couple of advantages such as independant, objective and professional documentation for Open Source.

    On the other hand, I'm also concerned that these documentations might not be as in-depth as if they were written by the persons involved in these projects.

    I mean, will we see a similar case like "The marketing department never understands what we IT is really doing!"?

    --
    Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
    1. Re:Pros and Cons by bstadil · · Score: 2, Insightful
      not be as in-depth as if they were written by the persons involved in these projects.

      I don't understand this. Why wouldn't the people incolved in the project add the In-Depth later sparing them for the grunt work and using their knowledge much better. It seems like a win -win to me

      --
      Help fight continental drift.
    2. Re:Pros and Cons by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 2, Insightful


      I mean, will we see a similar case like "The marketing department never understands what we IT is really doing!"?

      It doesn't matter. If the OSDDP projects don't produce usefully material, it'll sit unused. If it does prove to be usefully, it'll become widely adopted. Just like OSS, OSDDP material will live or die on merit - not corporate politics.
    3. Re:Pros and Cons by lordcorusa · · Score: 2, Insightful

      On the other hand, I'm also concerned that these documentations might not be as in-depth as if they were written by the persons involved in these projects.

      This may be a blessing in disguise. Often times, software developers do a poor job of writing manuals for their own software; they are simply "too close" to the project. Since they know the project too intimately, they assume that intimate knowledge is shared by users. End users should never be forced to learn implementation details of a program in order to use the program, and having documentation written by an outsider may help to make the documentation more task-focused and less detail focused.

      An example is the case where a developer makes a program extremely flexible, usually configured manually through a needlessly complex and difficult to understand configuration file. (I won't name names to avoid embarassing anyonr, but this sounds like many open source projects.) The developer thinks nothing of the configuration process, because he understands all of the intimate details, so he writes a huge document describing every little feature and option. Due to the size and interconnectedness of the options, users typically find such documents impossible to understand. In many cases, most users want generally the same few features and are not interested in every option under the sun. (Once again, if you use open source extensively, you will know what I am taling about.) They generally find such focused and useful documentation written by someone without intimate knowledge of the program.

      Also, outsiders will be less likely to forgive and shrug off defects in a program. For example, let's say program FOO has a bug whereby any file saved with a name greater than 8 characters causes FOO to fail to save the data. The lead programmer knows the technical reasons for this and the difficult/kludgy steps needed to correct it, so he simply writes in the documentation that users must remember to use names with fewer than 8 characters. On the other hand, a 3rd party documentation writer would not know this, so he would tell users that a bug existed in FOO with respect to file naming, and encourage the users to pressure the developer for a fix.

      Finally, a little theory. In my Software Engineering courses, it is stressed as best practice to write documentation before ever writing one line of code. It is also stressed that when code was written first, (as is the case in almost every professional and open source project on which I have worked) a 3rd party should write documentation to avoid just the problems I have desribed.

      --
      The preceding comments reflect the author's personal opinion and are public domain, unless explicitly stated otherwise.
  3. Kinda different approach... by Skudd · · Score: 4, Interesting

    From what I know of the open source world, documentation is one area that people make money on the free product.

    Although, I suppose it does make sense, given the fact that what is published could most likely be printed, bound, and sold, just the same as any other documentation.

    1. Re:Kinda different approach... by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 2, Insightful


      From what I know of the open source world, documentation is one area that people make money on the free product.

      A couple points.

      First, I some of O'Reilly's tactics quite intersting. For example, they sell a book on Subversion called Version Control with Subversion. The very same work is available online. The book is licensed under Creative Commons. This hasn't been the first work done in this manner by O'Reilly. And that would imply that there is something else to this business than hording documentation.

      Secondly, even proprietary software produces a considerable market for technical books. Even for software that comes with complete, professionally writen manuals, etc. (sometimes even some degree of support).

      Finally, documentation isn't new to Open Source. There are actually projects with some very good documentation (as rare as that may be). Yet publishing houses have began publishing an increasing number of technical books covering these as well as other Open Source projects.

      I doubt better documentation is going to destroy the technical book business model for Open Source software.
    2. Re:Kinda different approach... by erick99 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      O'Reilly's tactics make sense when I think about all of the ebooks and I have perused online and then bought a hard copy because it's more convenient to read and much easier to carry around. Perhaps this has worked for them in the past?

      --
      http://www.busyweather.com/
    3. Re:Kinda different approach... by Skudd · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's a good couple of points.

      I wasn't trying to imply that it was going to destroy the business model, nor that hording the documentation was the only way to make the money. I am fully aware of professional support, packaging, and non-open source software that is bundled with the open source software.

      There is really a very lucritive market out there, even though the product itself is free or the documentation is freely available.

  4. Simpler is Better, Plus Liquid Oxygen Bonus by pipingguy · · Score: 2, Informative


    Isn't Perdue where George Goble teaches?

    He's an engineering and BBQ legend that had to remove his site about lighting and enhancing flames with liquid oxygen.

    Oh yeah, I almost forgot that open source education thingie is probably a good idea. I'd have to buy a Linux for Dummies book and then look for the "if you are still too dense..." part.

  5. Re:Great in many cases... by emil.ede · · Score: 2, Funny

    What do you mean? Is Apache not a big project? ;)

  6. Re:Great in many cases... by ndunn · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Its ironic that you mention that. Apache is a tool that needs great documentation (as opposed to sniffing through newsgroups), as opposed to OpenOffice, which is, for the most part, self-explanatory.

  7. Re:License-Gatekeepers! Set my information free. by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 4, Insightful


    For all forms of knowledge there are gatekeepers. Even your beloved Internet has a gatekeeper know as an ISP.

    My ISP is being a poor gatekeeper then. I can change service to another ISP. I can go to my local internet cafe. I can go the the library. I can wait until I go to work. In all cases, I can access the same information without my ISP either being aware of or having any say in that access.


    Yes, lets hold up as a good example of what we'll get, The Internet. OK so you've just read something on the web. So how do you know it is correct?

    Something gets printed in a Journal. How do you know it is correct? The same process of peer review and established trust can be done with the web. And, in fact, has been done for quite some time.
  8. This is a GoodThing(TM) by DLR · · Score: 4, Informative
    The biggest weakness of OpenSource in general is the documentation. And while no one can argue that you can get more in depth documentation from the author of the software, most of that documentation is difficult to read at best, and so totally obscure that it would be easier to just read the source and figure out the app at worst. When the programmers write the docs they tend to take too much for granted. They'll tell you about the leaves on the trees and the patterns on the bark, but neglect to tell you what type of tree they're telling you about, so to speak. This is why most companies have a different team writing the docs than wrote the application.

    Having said that, I'm very glad to see someone addressing the need for documentation on OpenSource software. If Joe User can grab a manual (even a virtual one) and read up on how to use (for example) Open Office he's far more likely to try to use it if the latest commercial offering is out of his budget. And if some members of Management happen to try reading some decent documentation on a given package they might be persuaded to run a "test copy" at work as well. This shortcoming (the lack of good docs) has probably been one of the larger stumbling blocks to the widespread adaptation of Open Source software by business, and this is a novel way to get some people to work on this area for free.

    --
    "Like fire and fusion, government is a dangerous servant and a terrible master."~RAH
  9. Involving students with open source code by Diomidis+Spinellis · · Score: 4, Interesting
    In my course Software Comprehension and Maintenance I ask students to contribute to an open-source project, by adding a new feature or fixing an important bug. The course's grade is entirely determined by their performance on this project.

    The course is an elective, and was offered for the first time last year; not many students decided to take it. Those who did, got hooked; some commented that it was the course where they really understood what it meant to program.

    The following projects were completed last year:

    This year the course will be taught in English and will be offered to students across Europe through the EU's Erasmus student mobility programme. I hope to be able to report on new exciting results through slashdot next year.

  10. Re:Don't do it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yeah, right. I've had nothing but good experiences from listing my OSS work on my resume. Employers like it when a youngster has done something more than academic work, and like it or not, OSS is for the most part non-academic software for the real world.

    So, imagine an employer faced with two fresh out of school graduates, neither of whom has done any paid work on technical documentation. One went to a school that gives the students toy examples designed by the instructor (and you've all seen what academic examples are like...). The other went to a school that gives the students assignments to work on the documentation of large OSS projects. In the final analysis, the employer would be a fool not to choose the graduate that already has experience on large-scale real-world documentation work, who cares what the license of the software or the documentation was.

  11. OK, I’ll bite by Pan+T.+Hose · · Score: 4, Informative

    Because Lawrence Lessig is cool Stanford Professor that argued in front of the Supreme Court about copyright extensions, and Richard Stallman is hippy-looking MIT drop-out that argues with geeks about Linux really being GNU/Linux?

    I know this is a trendy thing here to insult Richard Stallman, but please at least stick to facts. First of all, he is not an "MIT drop-out." Back in 1971, as an 18 years old freshman at Harvard University he was hired by MIT as a hacker in the AI Lab. If working as a teenager in The Artificial Intelligence Laboratory in the early '70s is not "cool" than I seriously don't know what is.

    Second of all, it is slightly more complicated than "Linux really being GNU/Linux." You might want to read the GNU/Linux naming controversy article on Wikipedia for a good start. Do you remember the Seattle Times interview with Linus Torvalds which was posted here just a week ago? This is the first sentence of the opening paragraph: "Linus Torvalds [pronounced LEE-nus] started a revolution of sorts in the computer industry when he created the Linux operating system and decided to share it with fellow programmers on the Internet."

    The problem is that Torvalds didn't start any revolution in 1991. The revolution had already been happening becuase that very operating system had been being written since Linus was 14 years old. Eight years later he wrote the final piece, the kernel, and finally made GNU usable.

    This was a great achievemnt. But the fact that taking an 8 years old project and renaming it after one's name can often start flame wars should not be surprising to anyone. Do you remember the recent outrage with CherryOS and PearPC? There are a lot of strong emotions involved where one puts many years of hard work into a project. But that is even not the most important thing here.

    It is not important whose name is on the project. It is not important who started it, but it is very important why. The GNU project was started because of some ideals. Those very ideals made it possible. And those ideals made it needed in the first place. When people read such intervies and get the impression that Torvalds wrote the entire operating system starting a revolution and don't even know that GNU has ever existed, they read "Just for Fun: The Story of an Accidental Revolutionary" Torvald's autobiography and get the impression that it is all about fun. Meanwhile, the real revolution has started because of freedom and nothing else.

    And this revolution was not about starting something new, but rather saving something old.

    I strongly urge you to read Free as in Freedom written by Sam Williams to know how, when and why the revolution was started. The entire book is released under the GNU Free Documentation License and is available on-line.

    Stallman, an MIT hacker in the 1970s, wanted a source code for his printer drivers to fix them. A fellow programmer refused to give it to him because of an NDA. It outraged Stallman who considered it a personal insult and who repeatedly refused to get software which was offered to him for free but with an NDA, alienating himself and making his life as a programmer much harder, because at the end he was pretty much the only person in the AI Lab with no access to all of the proprietary software there.

    There are strong emotions involved. There are ideals, fight for freedom at the cost of personal sacrifices. It is not "just for fun." Richard Stallman was not an "MIT drop-out." He r

    --
    Sincerely,
    Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
    "Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
  12. Other documentation projects by 2bluemike · · Score: 2, Funny

    I heard the business school is also helping to write documentation on how NOT to lose to Wisconsin and Michigan. Go Boilers!

  13. and I'll bite back by TAGmclaren · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You assume I know nothing about the whole controversy, when in fact I do. I've met RMS, I've heard him speak about what drives him.

    The quip at the start was meant to be humour. You asked why they're using creative commons - I said because RMS is a hippy-looking MIT drop-out (using the second definition of the word), which is all true.

    Now, without wanting to disturb you up there on your soap box, what matters when picking sides over this for most people isn't reality. It's perception. Laurence Lessig is the foremost authority on electronic IP right now, known widely amongst the community for his ideals. RMS is known mostly only within the IT fraternity, and even then people think of him as some smelly monk whose interesting but for the most part to be avoided.

    So, assume you're a Joe Blow (no law degree or PhD, as you quite proudly boast) and you have to pick a license. Do you:
    a) pick the guy who has stood up in front of the supreme court fighting for the prevention of copyright extensions, and who developed the licence that The Beastie Boys have released work under; or
    b) pick the guy that quit MIT, is in serious need of a haircut/shave and who gets up on his soapbox regularly about it should be GNU/Linux, not just Linux?

    Doesn't matter about whose right or whose wrong. It's just how it's perceived. I admire RMS, I think the world needs people like him, but I think that what he's proposing is flawed. I think that Linus's philosophy is much more realistic than RMS's semi-communist approach, and in trying to create freedom for the users he denies freedom for the developers - the people whose software it is.

    Regardless, the original quip was meant humourously (note the smiley). So just relax a bit, ok? :)

    --
    Iran has endorsed
    1. Re:and I'll bite back by spuzzzzzzz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think that Linus's philosophy is much more realistic than RMS's semi-communist approach, and in trying to create freedom for the users he denies freedom for the developers - the people whose software it is.

      And yet I have never heard RMS argue that developers should be prevented from writing free software. His arguments revolve around the idea that users should refuse to use non-free software. So it doesn't deny freedom for anyone because no one is prevented from doing anything. It's more of a boycott thing, I guess.

      As for the semi-communist comment, free software can promote competition in certain ways. If you have some free software that you need support for, you can shop around for support and let market forces do the work. On the other hand, if you want support from some piece of proprietary software, you can only get support from the original vendor. I prefer to think of the difference between free and non-free software as the difference between capitalism and monopoly, not the difference between communism and capitalism.

      --

      Don't you hate meta-sigs?
    2. Re:and I'll bite back by cofaboy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I thought that RMS referred to GNU/Linux that way because he is still hopeful that HURD will become fully operational, this would give 2 systems GNU/Linux and GNU/HURD.

      Both parts are required to make an operating system, GNU provides all the support, bells and whistles whilst Linux and HURD provide a kernel.

      What is it that people find so damn difficult to understand about that

      --
      In the end, It's all bovine dung you know
  14. why not support LDP? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful


    This project seems to have larger scope than LDP but it seems it could still live inside LDP. Some of the documentation producted by Linux Documentation Project isn't really that Linux specific.

  15. Awesome idea. by Aldric · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'd have loved to do stuff like that for my grades when I was a student - I hated doing pointless programming like most assignments force a student to do.

  16. Beautiful! by Lee_in_KC · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'm not sure if the true implications are really sinking in to some of you:

    Imagine being free to write whatever you want and not having to document! Write whatever you want and some guy that slept in on registration day and missed out on a popular development class will document it for you because he got stuck in the documentation class. Finally a reward for those who actually get up on time in school!

    That's just ... AWESOME!

  17. Computers and Typesetting by Ann+Coulter · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Knuth's Computers and Typesetting material should be taught to students who want to learn about documentation. Knuth's writing style is very straightforward and direct. Every student who wants to develop a well documented project should at least scan over one of TeX or METAfont program books to learn how to document code. The two programs also deal with orginization, making the most of a given implementation, and good general natural language composition in general. All students who want to pass on knowledge to others should learn from Knuth's example. Knuth is an excellent teacher. I can make that statement from just reading his books. Anyone who want to write clear and concise papers, programs, books, and anything that is meant to teach others should at least study some of Knuth's works.

  18. The Linux Documentation Project - TLDP by wehe · · Score: 2, Informative

    There is already The Linux Documentation Project - TLDP, offering many high quality Linux HOWTOs, FAQs and guides in different languages.

  19. This is an absolutely fantastic idea by Catullus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Universities (in Europe, at least) are mostly funded by the public purse. Why not give students the option of giving something back?

    Almost every computer science degree involves some kind of group or individual project. Just imagine the amount of free software that could be produced if all of these projects were released as open source.

    Also - forcing the students to handle e-mails saying "your s0ftware is cr@p! where can I get l33t cracks?" is good experience for life :)

  20. As the sysadmin of pw.english.purdue.edu... by allanc · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...I am amazed that the machine stayed up under a Slashdotting.

    So did everyone just go "Documentation? Screw that. No way I'm clicking on that link" or what?

    --AC