https://unlicense.org/

Note the 'permanently' and 'irrevocably' words being used.  CC0 cannot be revoked.  It also goes on to state that the heirs cannot revoke it either (an issue with public domain).
Background reading: http://www.rosenlaw.com/lj16.htm

https://choosealicense.com/licenses/



UNBOUND LIBRARIES NOT-CALL 
We prefer to work with Free Software and distribute work under Open Content Licenses. While we favour Free and Open source philosophy, we’re also conscious of the links of Open Access ideology to colonial extractivism. We see this worksession as an occasion to experiment with ways of sharing that go beyond the open/closed binary. This model can obstruct the imagination for complexity and porosity. In addition we want to take into account the rights to opacity in access and transmission of knowledge, especially in regard to marginalized communities.

COLLABORATION GUIDELINES
When it comes to technology, we think Free Software can make a difference because we are invited to consider, interrogate and discuss the technical details of software and hardware, or when we want to engage with its concepts, politics and histories. For this reason, we distribute all our work under Open Content Licenses (Free Art License) and work with and on Free, Libre and Open Source Software. Over the last years, we have come to the realisation that being affirmative of Free Culture has to come with more critical considerations. Although we are not sure yet how, we want to take into account the links of Open Access ideology to colonial extractivism which can obstruct the imagination of complexity and porosity. In addition we want to take into account the rights to opacity in access and transmission of knowledge, especially in regard to marginalized communities.

-> What license (practice) for Constant?! = What license for Unbound Libraries documentation?

- Make clear that we are starting from collective authorship
- Include other species + machinic authorship
- Make a statement/exception/awareness of cultural appropriation
- Making connection between license + collaboration guidelines explicit
- Tone down reliance on ownership


--------------------

*From the Unbound worksession

*Cultural appropriation

Eszther Solomon case https://cuadernosdedanza.com.ar/textosdanzacontemporanea/602/cultural-extractivism-is-the-subtraction-of-an-ancestral-knowledge-or-an-art-to-destroying-it

Indigenous/Traditional Knowledge & Intellectual Property https://www.academia.edu/23343574/Indigenous_Traditional_Knowledge_and_Intellectual_Property_by_Jane_Anderson

Kimberly Kristen, Does Information Really Want to be Free

https://www.discogs.com/Laurence-Rassel-Terre-Thaemlitz-Useless-Movement-EP-Remixes-From-The-Laurence-Rassel-Show/release/1228994
-> critique of Thaemlitz on Constant licensing?

https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691192888/hacking-diversity
    
When knowledge travels
Knowledge on its travels: dispersal and divergence in the makeup of communities
Marilyn Strathern

Discussion Elo https://pad.constantvzw.org/p/unboundlibraries_appropriateaccess

First proposal, notes during worksession https://pad.constantvzw.org/p/FAC

*Authors of the future

"The Double Misunderstanding with Copyleft" in https://www.bleu255.com/~aymeric/dump/aymeric_mansoux-sandbox_culture_phd_thesis-2017.pdf

Traditional knowledge (TK) licenses https://localcontexts.org/tk-licenses/
https://localcontexts.org/tk/ss/1.0 (these are labels?)

vs FAL http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/
vs Decolonial Media License https://freeculture.org/About/license
vs Cinemas Sauvages Hallucinating Retro-license https://pad.constantvzw.org/p/piksel
vs The (Cooperative) Non-Violent Public License https://thufie.lain.haus/NPL.html​

The Non-Violent Public License intentionally does not meet the Free Software Definition because of the restrictions put in place to protect others from violence aided by the use of the copyrighted work. "Freedom 0" is explicitly violated to afford these protections and prevent unethical usage of the program to actually Free Society.This license does preserve freedoms 1-3 and can be referred to as a "three freedoms" license. Similarly to the GNU AGPL this license has the additional requirement that server-side source code modifications to public-facing server software must be published for users as well as the usual expectations for FLOSS software with the exception of restrictions on Freedom 0 for ethical purposes.