<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><xml><records><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>47</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Luis Soares Barbosa</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Sara Fernandes</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">António Cerone</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Papadopoulos, PM</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">FLOSS in technology - enhanced learning</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">SEFM 2012 Satellite Events, InSuEdu, MoKMaSD, and OpenCert Thessaloniki, </style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2014</style></year><pub-dates><date><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">October</style></date></pub-dates></dates><urls><related-urls><url><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">https://haslab.uminho.pt/sites/default/files/lsb/files/fcbp12.pdf</style></url></related-urls></urls><pub-location><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Greece</style></pub-location><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;This paper presents a comparative analysis of Free/Libre Open Source Software (FLOSS) Learning Management System (LMS). Following a selection process we analyze the functionalities and characteristics of 8 tools commonly used in formal and informal education. More specifically we focus on the availability of different tools concerning communication and assistance, such as, forum, email, calendar, portfolios, etc. Our analysis showed that despite their similarities, the appropriateness of different FLOSS LMSs can be greatly affected by the specific needs of students, instructors and institutions.&lt;/p&gt;
</style></abstract></record></records></xml>