1.
Introduction ^
- high transaction costs in the manual clearance of licensing terms and conditions,
- sufficient expertise to detect compatibility conflicts between two or more licenses,
- negotiation and resolution of licensing conflicts between involved parties.
2.1.
System Requirements & Affordances ^
2.2.
DALICC Software Architecture & Functional Spectrum ^
3.
Conclusion ^
4.
Aknowledgements ^
5.
References ^
Deloitte (2012). Open growth. Stimulating demand for open data in the UK. See also http://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/uk/Documents/deloitte-analytics/open-growth.pdf.
ENISA (2013). Detect, SHARE, Protect Solutions for Improving Threat Data Exchange among CERTs, October 2013.
Ermilov, Ivan, & Pellegrini, Tassilo (2015). Data licensing on the cloud: empirical insights and implications for linked data. ACM Press, p. 153–156.
European Commission (2014). Towards a thriving data-driven economy. Brussels, 2 July 2014, COM(2014) 442 final.
Hoffmann, Axel, Schulz, Thomas, Zirfas, Julia, Hoffmann, Holger, Roßnagel, Alexander, & Leimeister, Jan Marco (2015). Legal Compatibility as a Characteristic of Sociotechnical Systems. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 57(2), p. 103–113. http://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-015-0373-5.
OECD (2008). Intellectual Assets and Value Creation. See also: http://www.oecd.org/sti/inno/40637101.pdf.
Roehring, Paul & Pring, Ben (2013). The Value of Signal and the Cost of Noise. London: Oxford Economics.
- 1 See also: Versata, Trilogy Software, Inc. and Trilogy Development Group v. Ameriprise, Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc. and American Enterprise Investment Services, Inc., Case No. D-1-GN-12-003588; 53rd Judicial District Court of Travis County, Texas.