DOCSLIB.ORG

Free and Open Source Software in Argentina

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Free and Open Source Software in Argentina Free and open source software in Argentina PABLO WEGBRAIT1∗ SUMARIO: 1. lntroduction. 2. Free or open source? 3. Is access to sotfware a constitutional/hu- man rignt under Argentine law? 4. Legal regime. 5. Foss in the Argentine governmental sector. 6. Enforceability of foss viral licenses under Argentine law. 7. A buoyant third sector. Conclusions 1. INTRODUCTION As in other parts of the world, free and open source software (FOSS)2 has been gain- ing acceptance in Argentina over the past years. FOSS differs from proprietary software. A proprietary software company devotes substantial monetary and human resources to develop computer programs. The “core” of those programs is the source code, its “written” part, which may be read by the human user3. Under a proprietary scheme, rights to the source code -which are protected under trade secret statutes, and copyright laws and treaties-, may only be modified by the author or rightholder, or with their consent. The rationale behind this business model is that mon- etary gain results from selling the software because, if users had access to the source code (or if they could freely reproduce it), they would not buy it from the software developer, who would not recoup its investment. Under the proprietary scheme, the software user acquires a license to use the program for only one computer terminal (as a general rule), and must pay for additional licenses for further use of the software. Moreover, the user may not access the source code in order to study how it works and/or to detect flaws. On the contrary, under the FOSS model, users may access the source code in order to see how it works and/or to improve it. In addition, any improvements to the source code 1 The author wishes to thank Professors Carlos Correa and Lea Bishop Shaver for their thorough review and comments during the preparation of this paper. 2 Even though in this work I shall refer to free and open source software as “FOSS”, I will sometimes treat them separately as “free” and “open source” software”, taking into account the differences between both movements explained below. 3 The “object code”, instead, can only be read by the computer. Object code is the code produced by a compiler (a program that translates source code into object code). As expressed, programmers write programs in source code, which consists of instructions in a particular computer language. Computers, however, can only execute instructions written in a low-level language called machine language. To get from source code to machine language, the programs must be transformed by a compiler. The compiler produces an intermediary form called object code, which is often the same as or similar to a computer’s machine language (see: http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/o/object_code.html and http://www.webopedia. com/TERM/c/compiler.html). Anuario Andino de Derechos Intelectuales. − 123 − Año VII - N.º 7. Lima, 2011 ANUARIO ANDINO DE DERECHOS INTELECTUALES DERECHO DE AUTOR must be given back freely (as we will see, not freely in the sense of “no compensation”, but freely in the sense of freedom to access, study, improve and modify the software). At first glance, it may seem that no monetary gain results from the FOSS model. However, nothing could be further from the truth, because the “free” element in FOSS only means that access to the source code must be free, but it does not prevent commercial enterprises from providing paid ancillary services such as software development, implementation, training and support. For a developing country like Argentina4, avoiding the cost of proprietary software licenses may represent substantial savings for a budget-constrained public sector, also furthering broader access to education, in an era when digital learning should certainly form part of any curriculum.5 It has been further underlined that FOSS implies savings in the development of non-differentiating factors, such as operating systems. Software is made up of a se- ries of components, non-differentiating and differentiating. Only the latter represent a competitive advantage for the software developer. While in an open model such as FOSS competitors may collaborate in the development of non-differentiating factors, in proprietary settings competitors shall work separately on non-differentiating factors, which may result in an unnecessary duplication of efforts. In the case of FOSS, col- laborative work on non-differentiating factors may reduce the total cost of ownership (TCO) of computer programs. In developing countries (like Argentina), where labor costs are comparatively lower, the TCO would otherwise be allocated to payment of proprietary software royalties. In addition, for developing countries it may be more advantageous to build on existing open software platforms as a means of encouraging budding companies (Rizk / El-Kassas: 2009). Moreover, the adoption of free software may contribute to programs of digital inclusion carried out by national and local governments in developing countries. Considering that free software costs less, it may provide a much greater outreach for those programs. Moreover, free software represents an easily sustainable model for the dissemination of information and communication technologies in developing countries (UNCTAD: 2004). 4 See page 376 of the United Nations Human Development Report 2007/2008, where Argentina is classified as one of 137 developing countries; available at: http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_20072008_EN_Com- plete.pdf. 5 It is noted that the dissemination of information technologies depends on three basic conditions: (i) access to certain equipment, software and digital information on the part of users, (ii) the acquisition of the necessary equipment and software, and (iii) the creation of efficient information technology use capabilities (Correa: 1999). It could be argued that the cost savings generally resulting from FOSS use enables broader access to information technologies, particularly crucial for developing countries such as Argentina. Furthermore, on July 24, 2009, the MERCOSUR summit held in Asunción, Paraguay, issued a declara- tion favoring free software, proposing MERCOSUR governments to adopt policies fostering free and open technologies such as free software (which guarantee “digital inclusion”), as well as information and communication technology policies in public education that protect regional technological sovereignty, through the use of applications based on free software and non-paid access to web-based resources (see: http://www.solar.org.ar/spip.php?article617). The MERCOSUR is a common market formed by Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay (see: http://www.mercosur.int). − 124 − FREE AND OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE IN ARGENTINA DERECHO DE AUTOR Under the TRIPS Agreement, software is copyright-protected. Section 10.1 of TRIPS establishes that “Computer programs, whether in source or object code, shall be protected as literary works under the Berne Convention (1971)”. The consequence of assimilating software to literary works under the Berne Convention is that it will be subject to the bundle of exclusive rights classically recognized to authors or right holders under copyright or authors’ rights6 laws, including the right of reproduction, public communication and transformation. FOSS proponents (the free software movement in particular) consider that software should not be subject to those exclusive rights (basically expressed in practice as control over the source code) because software progresses more efficiently when created collaboratively, that is, when one or more programmers work on a computer program, then make available the results with no access restrictions, other programmers improve the work and, in turn, give those results back (again with no access restrictions) to the original programmer(s) and to the community in general. Argentina only introduced software protection into Law 11,723 in 1998, before the end of the transitional period established for developing countries in Section 65.2 of the TRIPS Agreement. Prior to that, there were only limited rules available for software pro- tection, as explained below. In order to address the topic of this paper, I will first make a general introduction about FOSS (in particular, the difference between “free” and “open source” software). Next, I will analyze provisions included in the Argentine Constitution and in human rights instruments ratified by Argentina, which may be helpful for the furtherance of FOSS. I will then turn to the Argentine legal regime applicable to software in general (which mainly addresses proprietary software, but does not pose any explicit obstacles on FOSS), and I will also mention FOSS legislation in Argentina indicating that, even though the national Congress has not adopted specific FOSS legislation so far, some Argentine provinces have adopted laws and administrative resolutions, which may serve as a background for future federal legislation. I shall also refer to civil law provisions that may, despite the absence of FOSS-specific legislation, enable the enforcement of FOSS viral licenses (an element without which the growth of the FOSS movement would be seriously hampered). Finally, I will refer to what I call a “buoyant third sector” – the civil society groups which are behind much of the use of FOSS in Argentina today. In my conclusions, I reflect on the obstacles that FOSS legislation may encounter, particularly if the Argentine Federal Government adopts an official FOSS procurement policy. 2. FREE OR OPEN SOURCE? Even though they are usually dealt with together, “free” and “open source” software are not synonyms. 6 “Copyright” and “droit d’auteur” (or “authors’ rights”) should not be considered strictly equivalent expressions. Important differences exist, for example in the field of moral rights or in the attribution -in the copyright system- of original authorship to entities which are not a physical person (Lipszyc: 1993). Consequently, I will sometimes use “authors’ rights” when pointing out the differences between both systems. − 125 − ANUARIO ANDINO DE DERECHOS INTELECTUALES DERECHO DE AUTOR Free software7 is software that may be studied, run, copied and distributed freely.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • An Introduction to Software Licensing
    An Introduction to Software Licensing James Willenbring Software Engineering and Research Department Center for Computing Research Sandia National Laboratories David Bernholdt Oak Ridge National Laboratory Please open the Q&A Google Doc so that I can ask you Michael Heroux some questions! Sandia National Laboratories http://bit.ly/IDEAS-licensing ATPESC 2019 Q Center, St. Charles, IL (USA) (And you’re welcome to ask See slide 2 for 8 August 2019 license details me questions too) exascaleproject.org Disclaimers, license, citation, and acknowledgements Disclaimers • This is not legal advice (TINLA). Consult with true experts before making any consequential decisions • Copyright laws differ by country. Some info may be US-centric License and Citation • This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). • Requested citation: James Willenbring, David Bernholdt and Michael Heroux, An Introduction to Software Licensing, tutorial, in Argonne Training Program on Extreme-Scale Computing (ATPESC) 2019. • An earlier presentation is archived at https://ideas-productivity.org/events/hpc-best-practices-webinars/#webinar024 Acknowledgements • This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science, Office of Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR), and by the Exascale Computing Project (17-SC-20-SC), a collaborative effort of the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science and the National Nuclear Security Administration. • This work was performed in part at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, which is managed by UT-Battelle, LLC for the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC05-00OR22725. • This work was performed in part at Sandia National Laboratories.
    [Show full text]
  • Creator's Guide to Commercializing Copyrighted Work
    STANFORD UNIVERSITY OFFICE OF Creator’s Guide to TECHNOLOGY Commercializing LICENSING Copyrighted Work OURSES WEB C PHY BOOKS S SI E GRA OFT TE D TO WA S O HO R C P E V M S U ID Y M S H E I E O C O P P C A S H F R G O N R I I C G E D O T O R G I O E R O C A R E N P R H O Y S M H P C C P O O A D B E E C L I I I C L B S O E O U U R M A S M N E P O S I T W P E C I E F B S R S O I T E A E D I S V B W O T O F K O S S he Stanford University Office of Technology Licensing (OTL) promotes the transfer of Stanford technology for Tsociety’s use and benefit. This technology grows out of the CONTENTS boundless creativity found in the faculty, staff, and students at the University. When that creative expression is protected by copyright, OTL and our Stanford creators face a distinct set THE BASICS .......................................................................................2 of commercialization and distribution issues that they do not STanford’s copyrighT POLICY .......................................................5 encounter for other forms of intellectual property. SOFTWARE .........................................................................................8 OTL created this booklet to help Stanford creators successfully identify and CONTENT AND COURSES..................................................................15 navigate those issues. The booklet is focused on out-licensing or distributing OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE LICENSING ..............................................18 creative works owned by Stanford.
    [Show full text]
  • (A/V Codecs) REDCODE RAW (.R3D) ARRIRAW
    What is a Codec? Codec is a portmanteau of either "Compressor-Decompressor" or "Coder-Decoder," which describes a device or program capable of performing transformations on a data stream or signal. Codecs encode a stream or signal for transmission, storage or encryption and decode it for viewing or editing. Codecs are often used in videoconferencing and streaming media solutions. A video codec converts analog video signals from a video camera into digital signals for transmission. It then converts the digital signals back to analog for display. An audio codec converts analog audio signals from a microphone into digital signals for transmission. It then converts the digital signals back to analog for playing. The raw encoded form of audio and video data is often called essence, to distinguish it from the metadata information that together make up the information content of the stream and any "wrapper" data that is then added to aid access to or improve the robustness of the stream. Most codecs are lossy, in order to get a reasonably small file size. There are lossless codecs as well, but for most purposes the almost imperceptible increase in quality is not worth the considerable increase in data size. The main exception is if the data will undergo more processing in the future, in which case the repeated lossy encoding would damage the eventual quality too much. Many multimedia data streams need to contain both audio and video data, and often some form of metadata that permits synchronization of the audio and video. Each of these three streams may be handled by different programs, processes, or hardware; but for the multimedia data stream to be useful in stored or transmitted form, they must be encapsulated together in a container format.
    [Show full text]
  • Article Title
    International In-house Counsel Journal Vol. 5, No. 20, Summer 2012, 1 Corporate Use of Open Source Software: Dispelling the Myths with a Policy HEATHER E. MCNAY Senior Intellectual Property Counsel, Landis+Gyr, USA Abstract Many companies do not understand open source software and choose to avoid it completely instead of creating an informed policy. Avoiding the issue can lead to developers using open source software incorrectly and potentially exposing proprietary company intellectual property through mandated public disclosure. The legal department for every technology company needs to work with the software development group to create a comprehensive Open Source Policy. The policy should ensure that every piece of open source code that is used by the company is reviewed pursuant to a prescribed process. A good policy will require that the requesting developer list the planned use of the open source code and provide the name of the license covering the code, if known. The proposed use of the code is important because stand-alone, or separably compilable, applications will not trigger certain license’s obligations, such as the publication of source code. There are many distinct open source licenses being used today, each with very different terms. With knowledge of the use and the license, the legal department can investigate the license and make a recommendation based on whether it is a ‘viral license’ (requiring publication) or not. Then, together with the technical point of contact, an informed decision can be made about all source code used by the company. Organisations will discover that using open source software in controlled manner can provide actual cost savings without exposing the company to any risk.
    [Show full text]
  • Wirtschaft Der Verschwendung Die Biologie Der Allmende
    Wirtschaft der Verschwendung Die Biologie der Allmende Andreas Weber Öko-logisch: Die wahre Ökonomie der Biosphäre Es gibt eine seit Milliarden von Jahren erfolgreiche Allmendewirtschaft: die Biosphäre. Deren Öko- logie ist jener irdische Haushalt von Energie, Stoffen, Wesen, Beziehungen und Bedeutungen, der die menschengemachte Öko-nomie enthält und erst ermöglicht. Licht, Sauerstoff, Trinkwasser, Klima, Boden, Energie versorgen auch den Homo oeconomicus der Gegenwart, der sich nach wie vor von Erzeugnissen der Biosphäre ernährt. Die Natur ist das gemeinwirtschaftliche Paradigma par excellence. Damit meine ich nicht nur, dass der Mensch mit den übrigen Wesen während einer überwältigenden Zeitspanne nach den Standards einer Commons-Wirtschaft zusammenlebte. Ich bin vielmehr überzeugt, dass die Beziehungen innerhalb der Biosphäre nach Allmendegesichtspunkten verlaufen. Darum kann uns die Natur eine schlagkräftige Methodologie für die Allmende als eine neue natürliche und soziale Ökologie liefern. Eine solche »existentielle Ökologie der Allmende« soll hier skizziert werden. Wirtschaftsliberalismus als heimliche Metaphysik des Lebens Aber von welcher Natur ist die Rede? Um den Haushalt der Lebewesen ohne die Lasten der liberalistischen Ökonomie bzw. Natur-Metaphorik zu betrachten, ist es zunächst nötig, Öko-logie und Öko-nomie des natürlichen Haushaltens neu zu verstehen. Wir können dabei in der Natur eine Entfaltungsgeschichte der Freiheit erkennen, zu der hin sich autonome Subjekte in gegenseitiger Abhängigkeit entwickeln. Diese Auffassung steht freilich im Gegensatz zum gängigen Bild des Lebens und Stoffaustausches in Biologie und Wirtschaftslehre. Wenige Modelle der Wirklichkeit waren in den letzten 200 Jahren so eng miteinander verschwistert wie die Theorie der Natur und die Theorie unseres Haushaltens. Beide Disziplinen fanden ihre heutige Form im viktorianischen England, beide prägten die entscheidenden Metaphern der jeweils anderen.
    [Show full text]
  • Open Source Software: Avoiding the Pitfalls; Reaping the Rewards
    McCarthy Tétrault LLP Open Source Software: Avoiding the Pitfalls; Reaping the Rewards Charles Morgan Presentation to the ALAI Auberge Le Saint-Gabriel September 24, 2003 McCarthy Tétrault Open Source »What is Open Source? »Brief History of Open Source »OSI Open Source Definition »Open Source Licenses »Open Source Business Models »Rewards & Pitfalls »Open Source Tips McCarthy Tétrault LLP What is Open Source? » Open source software can generally be defined by four freedoms: • The freedom to use the program • The freedom to examine and change the source code • The freedom to distribute the program • The freedom to distribute any changes to the source code McCarthy Tétrault LLP What is Open Source? » Nine core principles: • Free Distribution – no restriction on distribution of the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution (including royalty or fee) • Source Code - the source code must be accessible • Derived Works - license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software • Integrity of the Author’s Source Code - the license may restrict source code from being distributed in modified form only if the license allows the distribution of ‘patch files’ with the source code McCarthy Tétrault LLP What is Open Source? • No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups - the license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons • No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor - the license must not restrict anyone from making
    [Show full text]
  • Recommended File Formats for Long-Term Archiving and for Web Dissemination in Phaidra
    Recommended file formats for long-term archiving and for web dissemination in Phaidra Edited by Gianluca Drago May 2019 License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ Premise This document is intended to provide an overview of the file formats to be used depending on two possible destinations of the digital document: long-term archiving uploading to Phaidra and subsequent web dissemination When the document uploaded to Phaidra is also the only saved file, the two destinations end up coinciding, but in general one will probably want to produce two different files, in two different formats, so as to meet the differences in requirements and use in the final destinations. In the following tables, the recommendations for long-term archiving are distinct from those for dissemination in Phaidra. There are no absolute criteria for choosing the file format. The choice is always dependent on different evaluations that the person who is carrying out the archiving will have to make on a case by case basis and will often result in a compromise between the best achievable quality and the limits imposed by the costs of production, processing and storage of files, as well as, for the preceding, by the opportunity of a conversion to a new format. 1 This choice is particularly significant from the perspective of long-term archiving, for which a quality that respects the authenticity and integrity of the original document and a format that guarantees long-term access to data are desirable. This document should be seen more as an aid to the reasoned choice of the person carrying out the archiving than as a list of guidelines to be followed to the letter.
    [Show full text]
  • The Penguin and the Cartel: Rethinking Antitrust and Innovation Policy for the Age of Commercial Open Source
    The Penguin and the Cartel: Rethinking Antitrust and Innovation Policy for the Age of Commercial Open Source Stephen M. Maurer1 Abstract: Modern open source (“OS”) software projects are increasingly funded by commercial firms that expect to earn a profit from their investment. This is usually done by bundling OS software with proprietary goods like cell phones or services like tech support. This article asks how judges and policymakers should manage this emerging business phenomenon. It begins by examining how private companies have adapted traditional OS institutions in a commercial setting. It then analyzes how OS methods change companies’ willingness to invest in software. On the one hand, OS cost-sharing often leads to increased output and benefits to consumers. On the other, these benefits tend to be limited. This is because sharing guarantees that no OS company can offer consumers better software than any other OS company. This suppresses incentives to invest much as a formal cartel would. In theory, vigorous competition from non-OS companies can mitigate this effect and dramatically increase OS output. In practice, however, de facto cartelization usually makes the OS sector so profitable that relatively few proprietary companies compete. This poses a central challenge to judges and policymakers. Antitrust law has long recognized that the benefits of R&D sharing frequently justify the accompanying cartel effect. This article argues that most commercial OS collaborations can similarly be organized in ways that satisfy the Rule of Reason. It also identifies two safe harbors where unavoidable cartel effects should normally be tolerated. That said, many OS licenses contain so-called “viral” clauses that require users who would prefer to develop proprietary products to join OS collaborations instead.
    [Show full text]
  • Digital Mathematics Library Report of the Technical Standards Working Group
    1 Digital Mathematics Library Report of the Technical Standards Working Group Date May 18, 2003 Thierry Bouche, Ulf Rehmann Cochairs: Thierry Bouche Grenoble [email protected] Ulf Rehmann Bielefeld [email protected] Members: Pierre Berard [email protected] Jon Borwein [email protected] Keith Dennis [email protected] Michael Doob [email protected] Contents 1 Scanning Quality 2 2 Archiving Formats 2 3 File Name and URL Conventions 3 4 Delivery Formats 4 5 Download Units 5 6 Server Techniques 5 7 Further recommendations 6 8 Remarks 8 References 8 This document gives technical recommendations to ensure the integration of digitized mathematical documents in a uniform “Digital Mathematics Library” (DML). Since the digitized documents will be produced by various projects, possibly ap- plying different methods and technologies, these recommendations define general technical standards in order to make the DML as a whole easily accessible, usable, maintainable, and sustainable. A digitization project requires several procedures. The most critical tasks are the scanning and archiving processes, which are substantial for the quality and longevity of the data to be preserved. The scanning part requires most of the work, it cannot easily be repeated and should therefore be performed with greatest care. 2 Thierry Bouche, Ulf Rehmann Other tasks, like enhancing the data by OCR layers1, annotations, metadata, and web links, could be either postponed or possibly redone, if later on more advanced technology becomes available. The actual file formats or implementations mentioned here are presented as ex- amples, which, at the time of this writing, can be used in order to achieve the proposed standards.
    [Show full text]
  • Audio File Types for Preservation and Access
    AUDIO FILE TYPES FOR PRESERVATION AND ACCESS INTRODUCTION This resource guide identifies and compares audio file formats commonly used for preservation masters and access copies for both born digital and digitized materials. There are a wide range of audio file formats available, each with their own uses, considerations, and best practices. For more information about technical details see the glossary and additional resources linked at the end of this resource guide. For more information about audio files, view related items connected to this resource on the Sustainable Heritage Network in the “Audio Recordings” category. ​ ​ AUDIO FILE FORMATS FOR PRESERVATION MASTERS Lossless files (either uncompressed, or using lossless compression) are best used for preservation masters as they have the highest audio quality and fidelity, however, they produce the largest file sizes. Preservation Masters are generally not edited, or are minimally edited because their purpose is to serve as the most faithful copy of the original recording possible. WAV (Waveform Audio File Format) ● Uncompressed ● Proprietary (IBM), but very widely used ● Accessible on all operating systems and most audio software ● A variant called BWF (Broadcast Wave File Format) allows embedding of additional metadata sustainableheritagenetwork.org | [email protected] ​ Center for Digital Scholarship and Curation | cdsc.libraries.wsu.edu Resource updated 3/14/2018 FLAC (Free Lossless Audio Codec) ​ ● Compressed (lossless) ● Open format ● Accessible on all operating
    [Show full text]
  • Free Software in Latin America Cesar Brod [email protected]
    Free Software in Latin America Cesar Brod [email protected] Version 1.1 January 23, 2003 Free Software in Latin America page 1 of 25 Revision History Version Date Comments Author First public available version before proof-reading. Draft 1 06.11.2002 Cesar Brod Expect some errors. Draft 2 10.11.2002 Text review, proof reading Cesar Brod Added text on the First National Free Software Forum for Universities in Brasil (São Carlos) V 1.0 19.11.2002 Cesar Brod Added text on São Carlos city project for free software adoption – page 12 Consolidation of several research data on the overall ICT usage in Latin America V 1.1 22.01.2003 Cesar Brod Overall review Free Software in Latin America page 2 of 25 Table of Contents Revision History...................................................................................................................................2 Acknowledgements..............................................................................................................................4 Executive Summary..............................................................................................................................5 The ICT presence in Latin America.....................................................................................................8 An overview of the presence of Free Software17 in Latin American Countries.................................13 Free Software in Mexico....................................................................................................................14 GNOME.........................................................................................................................................14
    [Show full text]
  • Deliverable Report D6 SELF Platform Development: Localised and Tested System
    Project no. 034595 SELF Science, Education and Learning in Freedom Instrument: SSA - Specific Support Action Thematic Priority: IST-2005-2.5.5 ± Software and Services Deliverable Report D6 SELF Platform Development: localised and tested system Period covered: Due date: April 30th, 2008 from July 1st, 2006 to July 31st, 2008 Date of first submission: April 29th, 2008 Revision date: September 18th, 2008 Start date of project: Duration: July 1st, 2006 2 years Organisation name of lead contractor for this IR Homi Bhabha Center for Science Education Revision version 1.0 Dr. Nagarjuna G. Project co-funded by the European Commission within the Sixth Framework Programme (2002-2006) Dissemination Level PU Public PU PP Restricted to other programme participants (including the Commission Services) RE Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the Commission Services) CO Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services) Table of Contents Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... 3 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 4 2 Roadmap and Development Methodology ................................................................................... 5 3 Setting up the Server Infrastructure .............................................................................................. 6 3.1 Technical specifications
    [Show full text]