Beta

The catalogue

Sources

94 sources, triaged by content-reuse licence (93 done, 1 pending). Open means we may extract and store the content, restricted means link-only, and unknown means no clear signal was found.

AreaAll 94HR 12Immigration 14Campaigning 54Newsletter 14
LicenceAll 54Open 13Restricted 22Unknown 18Unclassified 1

54 of 94 sources (filtered · clear)

  • CampaigningForumsUnknown

    Action Network Organisers

    Hub for organisations, unions and grassroots groups to come together

    Action Network Organisers ↗
    Licence: none foundevidence ↗
    Why this verdict?

    actionnetworkorganisers.org.uk is a single-page community hub (hosted by nonprofit Small Axe) describing itself as an "open and crowdsourced space" for Action Network templates/datasets/case studies, but this "open" refers to collaborative contribution, not a formal reuse licence. No copyright notice, CC badge, or terms/licence page exists on the site itself (/terms, /privacy, /about, /resources all 404 as standalone URLs; footer only says "HOSTED BY" Small Axe). The host org's separate corporate site (thesmallaxe.org) has its own "All rights reserved" notice, but that isn't explicitly tied to this resource hub's crowdsourced content, so it wasn't used to call this restricted. No explicit statement either way after homepage, likely legal pages, and web search.

  • CampaigningResource libraryOpen

    Activist Handbook: The Wikipedia for activists

    Open-sourced, collaborative library of guides across disciplines

    Activist Handbook ↗
    Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 4.0evidence ↗
    Why this verdict?

    The site's /about page explicitly states "All our work is available under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International Licence, unless otherwise noted" and describes free redistribution/repurposing for non-commercial use. The /share page reiterates this and points users to attribute Activist Handbook when reusing content. This is a clear, site-wide licence statement covering the substantive content (guides/handbooks), though NonCommercial and ShareAlike conditions apply, and "unless otherwise noted" leaves room for per-page exceptions not individually checked.

  • CampaigningResource libraryUnknown

    Activists Resource Hub

    Signposting for activists, to other resource banks and websites

    Activists Resource Hub ↗
    Licence: none foundevidence ↗
    Why this verdict?

    After an exhaustive look I found no content-reuse signal in either direction for activists-resource-hub.com. The site (created by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and Social Change Lab) is a Cargo.site-hosted "edited guide" that, by its own homepage text, exists "to point you to some of the brilliant resources available for UK activists" — i.e. a signposting directory rather than an original content library. I fetched the homepage, About, Inspiration and Practical-Tools pages and read the footer: it contains only two partner logos (SCL and JRF) with no copyright notice, no licence statement, and no Creative Commons badge. Every candidate legal page (/terms, /terms-of-use, /license, /licence, /copyright, /legal, /privacy) returns HTTP 404, and the site's own sitemap.xml lists every page on the domain — none is a terms/licence/copyright page. There is no creativecommons.org link and no <link rel="license"> in the head; robots.txt only blocks SEO/audit bots and says nothing about reuse rights. A web search surfaced only background descriptions, no licence terms. Caveats: (1) there is no site-wide licence either granting or denying reuse, so under default copyright the safest assumption is that reuse is not permitted without asking — hence "unknown" rather than "open", and conservatively closer to restricted in practice; (2) most of the actual substantive material lives on the third-party sites it links to (Commons Social Change Library, Beautiful Trouble, NEON, Activist Handbook, Changemakers' Toolkit, Climate Advocacy Lab, Resource Centre), each of which carries its own separate licence that would need assessing individually; (3) the original-content footprint on this domain is very small (short category blurbs), so it may be of limited value to ingest regardless. Recommendation: link only / contact the operators ([email protected]) before extracting and storing. This is triage, not legal advice.

  • CampaigningMembership orgsRestricted

    Association of Directors of Adult Social Services

    Membership for workers in social services

    ADASS ↗
    Licence: All rights reserved (ADASS proprietary; no open licence)evidence ↗
    Why this verdict?

    The ADASS "Terms, Conditions & Legal" page states an explicit all-rights-reserved position: "Unless otherwise stated, the design and layout of this website and any material published (including text, graphics, logos, images and attached documents) is the property of ADASS," and "you cannot reproduce, modify, publicly display, link to or distribute the contents of this site, unless you have express permission from ADASS." Use is authorised "only for your personal, non-commercial use," which excludes extracting and storing content in an internal resource library. The homepage footer carries a plain copyright ("© Association of Directors of Adult Social Services 2026") with no Creative Commons or Open Government Licence badge, and a sampled resource page (the 2025 Spring Survey) shows only the standard site copyright with no per-item open licence. Caveat: this assesses the site-wide terms only; individual documents could in principle be released under their own licence ("unless otherwise stated"), and some embedded material may be third-party, so specific items would need per-item checking before any reuse.

  • CampaigningToolsUnknown

    Automic free software

    Co-op that designs free software

    Automic ↗
    Licence: none foundevidence ↗
    Why this verdict?

    I checked autonomic.zone thoroughly: the homepage, /about/, the /gdpr/ privacy policy, /our-ethical-guidelines/, and a blog/resource post all load (HTTP 200) but carry no content licence, copyright notice, or Creative Commons badge; the standard /terms, /terms-of-use, /license, /licence, /copyright, and /legal pages all 404. A raw-HTML scan of the full 81KB homepage (including its WordPress footer) found zero occurrences of "copyright", "©", "licen", "rights reserved", or "creativecommons.org", and a web search surfaced no site-specific reuse terms. The site's only freedom-related statement ("free as in freedom software wherever possible") concerns the software they build/run, not a reuse grant on their website text, so it cannot be relied on. With no explicit reuse permission and no explicit all-rights-reserved notice, this is a genuine no-signal case = unknown; note that UK default copyright still applies absent a licence, the assessment is site-wide (per-resource pages showed no individual licences either), and embedded third-party material could differ. Triage only, not legal advice; safest path is to link rather than store, or email [email protected] to confirm.

  • CampaigningValidated professional servicesRestricted

    Breakthrough Impact

    Campaign accelerator and campaign support

    Breakthrough Impact ↗
    Licence: none foundevidence ↗
    Why this verdict?

    After a thorough look I found no open-reuse signal anywhere on breakthroughimpact.org: no Creative Commons badge or creativecommons.org link, no OGL/public-domain/copyleft notice, and no "free to use/share/adapt" statement. The footer of the homepage, /about-us, and two actual content pages (a campaign-pathway guide and a lessons article) carry only a corporate identity line ("Breakthrough is the trading name of Impact Accelerator Ltd. Company No. 13065812") and design credits; the standard legal paths (/terms, /terms-of-use, /terms-and-conditions, /legal, /license, /copyright) all return HTTP 404, and the sole legal document — the Privacy & Cookie policy — contains no intellectual-property, ownership, or reuse clause. Because this is original editorial content (news, campaigner spotlights, guides) published by a UK commercial entity with no licence grant, default all-rights-reserved copyright applies, so it should be treated as restricted (link-only). Caveat: this is an implicit default, not an explicit "all rights reserved" or terms page — the site simply never addresses content reuse — and the assessment is site-wide; individual pages embed third-party material (e.g. photos, campaigner quotes) whose rights differ. Triage only, not legal advice; if reuse is genuinely needed, ask [email protected].

  • CampaigningPlaybooks/guides/toolkitsRestricted

    Campaign labs

    6-month program for grassroots teams

    Leading Change Network ↗
    Licence: none found (site-wide "© 2026 — Copyright All Rights reserved")evidence ↗
    Why this verdict?

    Every page of leadingchangenetwork.org carries an explicit "© 2026 — Copyright All Rights reserved" footer, and no open-reuse signal exists anywhere I looked: the Privacy Policy, About Us, and Membership Guidelines contain no reuse grant (only a confidentiality clause and references to "exclusive"/member resources); /terms-of-use/, /terms/, and /copyright/ all 404; and two sampled resource pages (Story Canvases, What is Organizing) show no per-item licence or Creative Commons badge, with one being "Member-only" and deferring licensing questions to a third-party author's email. A web search surfaced no licensing/reuse statement. The site's "knowledge sharing / generosity" mission language is aspirational, not a licence, so the only concrete signal is all-rights-reserved. Caveats: verdict is site-wide; some resources are member-gated or third-party-authored and may carry different terms, and this is triage rather than legal advice.

  • CampaigningPlaybooks/guides/toolkitsRestricted

    Campaigning toolkit

    Campaigning toolkit

    MND Association ↗
    Licence: none found (all-rights-reserved; © 2026 MND Association)evidence ↗
    Why this verdict?

    The MND Association site is all-rights-reserved. The site-wide Terms and conditions state "MND Association is the owner or the licensee of all intellectual property rights on the website," that users must not "reproduce, duplicate, copy or re-sell any part of the website," and (clause 5.4) "You must not publish or use for commercial purposes any part of the materials on the website without obtaining written consent from us." The footer carries only "© 2026 MND Association" with no Creative Commons badge or open-licence statement, and no /copyright page exists. Caveat: the toolkit page says "Please feel free to download and use the toolkit factsheets to support in your voluntary campaigning" — but this is a narrow, purpose-bound invitation to the charity's own volunteers, not an open licence (no adapt/redistribute rights, no licence name) and not a grant to extract and store content in a third-party library; it is overridden by the restrictive site-wide terms. Extracting and storing this content would require written consent, so link-only is the safe course.

  • CampaigningCase studiesUnknown

    Case study library

    Case study library of previous grants

    Funders Collaborative Hub ↗
    Licence: none foundevidence ↗
    Why this verdict?

    I checked the homepage, the case-studies listing, an individual case study (exploring-ai-for-grantmakers), the toolkit, and the about page, plus the standard legal paths (/terms, /terms-of-use, /terms-and-conditions, /license, /licence, /copyright, /legal, /privacy) which all return HTTP 404. The site (run by the Association of Charitable Foundations) shows only org/registration details in its footer and a single off-site ACF privacy-policy link; there is no copyright/reuse statement, no Creative Commons badge or link, and no per-item licence on the case study pages, and web searches surfaced no reuse terms. The toolkit page says its templates "can be downloaded and edited... to suit your needs," but that is functional guidance for funders using fillable tools, not a reuse licence, and it does not apply to the case-study content being assessed. With no explicit open licence and no explicit all-rights-reserved/no-reuse statement, the content-reuse position for the case-study library is genuinely unclear (caveat: assessed site-wide for the case studies; the toolkit templates and any embedded third-party material could differ); UK works are copyright by default, so do not extract/store without confirming permission with ACF.

  • CampaigningToolsOpen

    Civic Tool Finder

    Tools 'using tech for the common good'

    Civic Tech Field Guide ↗
    Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 4.0evidence ↗
    Why this verdict?

    The source URL app.civictech.guide/tools is the "Tool Finder" directory front-end (a Softr app) of the Civic Tech Field Guide; its page metadata sets og:site_name="Civic Tech Field Guide" and ties back to the civictech.guide domain. That project's site (footer + Terms of Service at civictech.guide/terms/) carries an explicit site-wide licence: a "License" heading, a Creative Commons badge linking to https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/, and the verbatim statement "This guide and directory are free to use, re-use, adapt, and modify for non-commercial purposes as long as you link back with attribution. (Creative Commons BY NC SA)". This is a recognised open reuse licence, so extracting and storing the curated/directory content is permitted, subject to BY-NC-SA conditions: attribution with a link back, non-commercial use only, and share-alike under the same licence. Caveats: (1) the licence covers the guide/directory content authored by CTFG, not the thousands of listed third-party tools/projects, which carry their own separate licences (content-vs-embedded distinction); (2) WebFetch returned 403 on the WordPress pages so the terms text was confirmed via direct HTTP fetch of the raw HTML rather than the rendered page; (3) the /tools app itself is JS-rendered and shows no separate in-app licence, so the verdict rests on the parent project's site-wide notice.

  • CampaigningResource libraryUnknown

    Classroom resources

    Resource collection on digital organising

    re:power ↗
    Licence: none foundevidence ↗
    Why this verdict?

    The homepage footer shows only a bare "© 2026 Re:power" copyright notice with no "all rights reserved" or reuse language. There is no Terms of Use page (repower.org/terms-of-use/ returns 404); the Privacy Policy page covers data/cookies only and has no IP/licensing clause; the Credits page covers photo/design credits only. Checked an actual resource PDF (Equity Informed Targeting guide) directly and found no copyright/licence statement in its metadata or content either. No Creative Commons links or "free to use/share/adapt" statements were found anywhere on the site.

  • CampaigningFunding opportunitiesUnknown

    Collaboration opportunities hub

    Opportunities for funding

    Funders Collaborative Hub ↗
    Licence: none foundevidence ↗
    Why this verdict?

    I checked the homepage footer, the /about page, multiple terms/legal pages (/terms, /terms-of-use, /terms-and-conditions, /legal, /copyright — all HTTP 404), the sitemap.xml (which confirms the site has no terms/legal/licence pages at all), several resource pages (Toolkit, the "Create a Written Agreement" template, and the Collaboration Resource Library), and ran a web search — finding no Creative Commons badge, OGL, or any content-reuse statement anywhere. The footer carries only a bare organisational copyright/registration line for the operator (Association of Charitable Foundations; Company No. 5190466, Charity No. 1105412) and a cookie notice. The site describes its toolkit as "free, practical" and says templates "can be downloaded and edited... to suit your needs," but that is permission to use the fill-in templates for your own collaboration, not a licence to extract and re-host the Hub's content — so it does not qualify as "open"; equally there is no explicit all-rights-reserved reuse prohibition, so the conservative result is unknown. Caveats: this is a site-wide assessment (no per-resource licences were found either), and the resource library is an external Google Sheet linking to third-party organisations' materials whose own licences would govern separately.

  • CampaigningForumsRestricted

    Commnuity groups

    Local and online groups for nonprofit staff

    NTEN ↗
    Licence: none found (standard all-rights-reserved copyright: "© 2026 NTEN")evidence ↗
    Why this verdict?

    Across the target Community Groups page, the homepage, About, Privacy Policy, two resource hubs, a flagship publication, and an NTEN-authored PDF guide, every footer shows only "© 2026 NTEN" with no Creative Commons badge, no creativecommons.org link, and no "free to use/share/adapt" statement. There is no site-wide Terms of Use, /license, /copyright, or /legal page (all returned 404); the only legal documents that exist are a Privacy Policy and event-specific 27NTC Sponsor Terms & Conditions, neither of which grants content reuse. No per-resource open licence appeared on the pages checked, so the conservative read is standard all-rights-reserved copyright = restricted (link-only). Caveats: the verdict covers NTEN's own content — the target page is a directory of community groups, and NTEN resource hubs link out to third-party materials (e.g., Community IT, Kairoi/GitHub, Microsoft) that carry their own, sometimes open, licences and would need to be assessed individually; the PDF guide's reference to "open-source licenses" is advice inside the template, not a licence grant on the document itself.

  • CampaigningForumUnclassified

    Communities and forums directory

    Curated directory of practitioner communities, forums and mailing lists

    Movement Library ↗
  • CampaigningToolsOpen

    Democracy Club data sets

    Comprehensive election data in the UK

    Democracy Club ↗
    Licence: CC BY 4.0 (Creative Commons Attribution 4.0) — applies to Democracy Club's election/candidate datasetsevidence ↗
    Why this verdict?

    Democracy Club's own Candidates API documentation states explicitly: "The data on this site is provided under the Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0) licence", linking to creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. This is corroborated by the developer API terms, which require attribution ("Attribute Democracy Club, ideally with a link to our website"), and by the site's Privacy & Terms page, which says candidate data "becomes open data available to anyone." So for Democracy Club's core election/candidate data, extracting and storing it is permitted provided you credit Democracy Club. Caveats: (1) This open licence is asserted for the DATA, not the marketing/prose pages of democracyclub.org.uk itself, whose footer is a plain all-rights-reserved copyright with no reuse grant; (2) embedded third-party data is explicitly excluded — the developer portal carries "Contains OS data © Crown copyright", "Royal Mail copyright" and "National Statistics" notices, and party logos derive from the Electoral Commission, none of which fall under DC's CC BY; (3) older DC material referenced CC BY-SA (ShareAlike), so a given dataset's exact licence should be confirmed at source. The live API is in private beta requiring a key, but that is an access gate, not a reuse restriction. This is triage, not legal advice.

  • CampaigningForumsRestricted

    Digital Charities

    Slack-based online space for non-profit workers

    Digital Charities ↗
    Licence: none found (bare "© Digital Charities" copyright, all rights reserved)evidence ↗
    Why this verdict?

    digitalcharities.org is a single-page sign-up portal for a ~2,500-member UK Slack community of not-for-profit digital workers; it hosts no reusable guides/toolkits/articles, only its own prose and a code-of-conduct PDF. The footer carries a bare all-rights-reserved notice ("© Digital Charities. Design adapted from a template by HTML5 UP. Bulb photo by Christian Dubovan...") with no Creative Commons badge, OGL, public-domain mark, or any "free to use/share/adapt" grant. Every standard licence/terms page (/terms, /terms-of-use, /copyright, /about, /legal, /license, /privacy) returns HTTP 404, and a web search for the site name plus "content licence terms reuse" surfaced only unrelated charity-copyright explainers from a different site (charitydigital.org.uk). I judge this restricted because the sole IP signal is an unqualified copyright with no reuse permission; caveats — the copyright covers the site itself while embedded third-party assets (HTML5 UP template, the bulb photo) carry their own separate terms, and in practice there is effectively no resource content here to extract.

  • CampaigningToolkitOpen

    Digital First Aid Kit

    Diagnostic guide walking activists through digital-security problems

    Digital First Aid Kit ↗
    Licence: CC BY 4.0evidence ↗
    Why this verdict?

    The homepage displays a "Licence: CC BY 4.0" badge linking to creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/, and states the resource is a collaborative effort of Rapid Response Network (RaReNet) and CiviCERT, noting it is open-source (GitLab repo) and welcomes contributions/forks/translations. Web search corroborates this: the site consistently describes itself as CC BY 4.0 licensed, permitting reuse, sharing, and adaptation with attribution. No indication of per-page exceptions or conflicting all-rights-reserved notices was found.

  • CampaigningFunding opportunitiesRestricted

    Grassroots Grants

    Grants for grassroots organisations

    Groundwork ↗
    Licence: none found (all-rights-reserved; personal print/download only, no adaptation)evidence ↗
    Why this verdict?

    The site (homepage, the Grassroots Grants resource page, and the Terms of Use) carries a standard charity copyright notice ("© Groundwork UK is a registered charity in England and Wales (No. 291558)") and no Creative Commons badge, OGL, public-domain, or "free to share/adapt" statement anywhere — keyword scans for "creativecommons", "licen", and "open government" returned zero matches on all three pages. The Terms of Use "Intellectual Property Rights" section permits only printing/downloading for reference, on condition that the copyright notice travels with any copy, that "You do not modify or change in any way the information or materials," and that Groundwork "reserves the right to withdraw permission to use materials on this website without notice." That is all-rights-reserved with a narrow personal-use carve-out — it does not authorise extracting, adapting, and re-storing content in a separate library, so I judge it restricted (link-only). Caveat: Grassroots Grants is delivered via the Government's "Know Your Neighbourhood" fund, so individual downloadable documents could carry separate terms (e.g. OGL), and this assessment covers the site's own page content, not embedded third-party material; it is triage, not legal advice. (The homepage/resource pages return HTTP 403 to automated fetchers; verbatim text was obtained via a browser user-agent request, consistent with the indexed Terms of Use page.)

  • CampaigningResource libraryRestricted

    Groups resources

    Guidance for local groups, including digital security and GDPR

    Friends of the Earth ↗
    Licence: All rights reserved (with narrow non-commercial/informational use exception)evidence ↗
    Why this verdict?

    The groups.friendsoftheearth.uk footer credits "© Friends of the Earth Limited" and points to the parent organisation's copyright notice, which states documents "may not be reproduced, stored or retransmitted... without prior written permission" unless used for informational, non-commercial purposes with the notice retained. This is a limited-permission all-rights-reserved policy, not a CC/OGL/CC0/public-domain licence, and no such licence badges or links were found on the groups site, its resources index, or the parent copyright page.

  • CampaigningGuide/explainerRestricted

    Guides

    Guides to understanding digital tools and controlling your data

    Privacy International ↗
    Licence: CC BY-NC-ND 2.0 UK: England & Wales (on PDF publications); no licence stated on interactive HTML guide pagesevidence ↗
    Why this verdict?

    Privacy International's downloadable PDF reports/guides (e.g. "PI's Guide to International Law and Surveillance" v4.0) carry an explicit front-matter notice: "Privacy International wants to encourage the circulation of its work as widely as possible while retaining the copyright," under "Creative Commons Licence Deed: Attribution-Non-Commercial-No Derivative Works 2.0 UK: England & Wales" — permitting copying/distribution with attribution but explicitly barring commercial use and adaptations. The task's "open" bucket is defined around licences like CC BY, CC BY-SA, CC0, OGL, public domain or copyleft that permit adaptation/reuse broadly; NC-ND is a materially more restrictive variant (no derivatives, non-commercial only), so I classify it as restricted rather than open, though it does permit verbatim non-commercial storage/redistribution with attribution — a caveat worth flagging to the human reviewer. Note also that the current interactive HTML `/guides/*` pages (the actual URL given, e.g. /guides/secure-digital-life) show no visible licence/copyright footer at all — the CC BY-NC-ND notice was only confirmed on legacy PDF publications (briefings, GILS guide), so there is a real possibility the modern guides site is unlicensed/all-rights-reserved by default or simply doesn't restate the org's standing policy; no /copyright, /terms, or /legal page exists (all 404).

  • CampaigningResource libraryOpen

    How to' guides

    Network of anti-oppressive organizers from around the world that share their skills

    Blueprints for Change ↗
    Licence: CC BY-NC 4.0 (Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International)evidence ↗
    Why this verdict?

    The website chrome itself (homepage, guides index, about, manual pages) has no footer copyright notice or dedicated licence/terms page — only a loose statement on the guides index that content "can be downloaded and shared freely among progressives." However, each guide is a Google Doc, and the actual documents carry an explicit licence line. I checked two different guides (Systems Thinking for Campaigning & Organizing; Distributed Organizing) and both end with the identical sentence "This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License." This is a genuine CC licence, so it counts as open reuse per the rubric, but note it's the NC variant (attribution required, non-commercial use only) and the statement is embedded per-document rather than declared site-wide; only 2 of ~34 listed guides were sampled directly.

  • CampaigningResource libraryUnknown

    Library

    Resource library

    Campaign Lab ↗
    Licence: none foundevidence ↗
    Why this verdict?

    The Library page (campaignlab.uk/library/) has an informal tagline "Take what you need. Share what you can." but this is not a formal licence and gives no specifics on what reuse is permitted. No footer, privacy policy, or checked individual resource pages (Lobbying on a Shoestring; Organising and Mobilising Your Campaign) contain a Creative Commons badge, copyright notice, or explicit terms of reuse. A web search surfaced an unverified snippet suggesting the Campaign Lab blog uses CC BY-SA 3.0, but this could not be confirmed on the actual blog page and would in any case apply to blog posts rather than confirmed to apply to Library resources.

  • CampaigningToolsUnknown

    Mapped

    Tool for organisers and activists to locate their people by constituency and more

    Common Knowledge ↗
    Licence: none foundevidence ↗
    Why this verdict?

    No copyright notice, Creative Commons badge, or terms-of-use page addressing content reuse was found on commonknowledge.coop or mapped.commonknowledge.coop (homepage, footer, privacy policy, about page, and a sampled article/blog post were all checked). Common Knowledge's GitHub org does open-source several software repos under MIT/GPL-3.0/AGPL-3.0, showing an open-source ethos for code, but the Mapped tool's own repo (ts-mapped) currently has no licence file, and code licensing is separate from whether the site's written content (articles, research writeups, guides) may be reused — no such statement exists for the latter.

  • CampaigningMembership orgsRestricted

    Membership

    Organisers network for training, events and solidarity

    Act Build Change ↗
    Licence: none foundevidence ↗
    Why this verdict?

    Every page checked points to all-rights-reserved with no reuse licence. The site-wide footer (homepage, membership page, and a sampled resource article) reads: "Copyright (c) 2025 Act Build Change Ltd. All rights reserved. No part of this site may be reproduced without our permission." The Terms of Use state all content "is owned and controlled by us, and is protected by copyright" and explicitly prohibit reuse ("You are not permitted to copy, record, share or distribute any information... unless stated otherwise"), allowing only attribution-gated quotation of extracts with written permission. No Creative Commons links, badges, or any "free to use/share/adapt" language appears anywhere, and a web search surfaced none. Caveats: this is a site-wide judgement (terms say "unless stated otherwise," so an individual toolkit could in principle carry its own licence, though none was found); the membership area is paywalled and could not be inspected; permission to quote credited extracts is not a licence to extract and store content. Triage, not legal advice.

  • CampaigningMembership orgsRestricted

    Membership portal

    Membership hub for workers and organisations to share resources and knowledge

    MyCommunity ↗
    Licence: none found (all rights reserved — "©MyCommunity 2026")evidence ↗
    Why this verdict?

    The site's Terms and Conditions explicitly assert all-rights-reserved copyright and prohibit reuse: "This website contains material which is owned by or licensed to us... Reproduction is prohibited other than in accordance with the copyright notice," adding that "Unauthorised use of this website may give rise to a claim for damages and/or be a criminal offence." The footer of the homepage, about-us page, and actual content/topic pages (/governance, /funding) shows only "©MyCommunity 2026" with no Creative Commons badge, Open Government Licence, public-domain, or "free to use/share/adapt" statement; a /copyright page does not exist (404) and a web search surfaced no open-licence signal. Verdict is therefore restricted: content may NOT be extracted and stored — link only. Caveats: the prohibition is site-wide and I found no per-resource licence that overrides it; however, individual guides credit and link to third-party originators (e.g. Co-operatives UK, Power to Change) whose upstream source material may carry its own, possibly more permissive, licence and would need separate assessment. This is triage, not legal advice.

  • CampaigningToolkitOpen

    OFA Legacy Trainings

    Toolkits, tactics guides and digital-organising trainings (legacy archive)

    Organizing for Action ↗
    Licence: CC BY-NC 4.0evidence ↗
    Why this verdict?

    The given pantheonsite.io URL 403s bots, but it is a Pantheon-hosted mirror of "OFA Legacy Trainings," whose production domain (ofalegacytrainings.com) states site-wide on its homepage: "All of these materials are licensed for reuse and adaptation under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial license," hyperlinked to creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/. This is an explicit, clear content-reuse permission for the training materials (slides, worksheets, toolkits). Caveat: CC BY-NC restricts commercial use, and individual sub-pages (e.g. the toolkits/tactics listing) don't repeat the statement per-resource, so treat it as a site-wide declared policy rather than confirmed on every single page.

  • CampaigningForumsRestricted

    Open Collective Documentation

    Open-sourced ecosystem where Collectives can connect with hosts that help them get set up, manage their administration, and raise and pay money securely and transparently

    Open Collective ↗
    Licence: none found (documentation text); CC BY-SA 4.0 applies only to embedded button-design assetsevidence ↗
    Why this verdict?

    The documentation prose carries no open reuse licence. The GitBook site is built from the public repo github.com/opencollective/documentation, but that repo has no licence (GitHub API returns license: null, the /license endpoint 404s, no LICENSE/COPYING file exists, and the README states nothing about reuse) — so under default copyright it is all-rights-reserved. The main platform Terms of Service (opencollective.com/tos) reinforces this, granting users only a "limited, nonexclusive, nontransferable, non-sublicensable, revocable license" for personal use and prohibiting copying/commercial use/derivatives of platform content. The one open signal is per-resource and narrow: a single page states the button DESIGNS are licensed CC BY-SA 4.0, but that covers embedded assets, not the documentation text, and the logo/trademark are explicitly excluded. Caveat: this is a site-wide vs per-resource and content vs embedded-asset distinction — extracting/storing the documentation text is not permitted, though individual reusable assets (buttons) and the open-source code are separately licensed. Triage only, not legal advice.

  • CampaigningForumsUnknown

    Progressive Exchange

    Online community to share information about online strategies, tactics and tools

    Progressive Exchange ↗
    Licence: none foundevidence ↗
    Why this verdict?

    Progressive Exchange (progressiveexchange.org) is a thin WordPress landing page whose sitemap lists only four pages (home, /about/, /contact/, and a default "hello-world" news post); its real activity is a members-only Google Group, not published web content. I read the full page HTML including the footer on two pages: it contains only a logo and an "About" link, with no copyright notice, no "all rights reserved", and no Creative Commons or other licence badge/link. All standard licence pages (/terms, /terms-of-use, /license, /licence, /copyright, /legal, /about, /privacy) return HTTP 404, and there are no resource/guide/toolkit pages to carry per-item licences. A web search surfaced a CC BY-NC-SA notice, but it belongs to a different, unrelated organisation (Australia's "the change agency"), not this site — so there is no licence signal either way. Caveat: this is site-wide triage; the substantive content actually lives in the gated Google Group, which was not assessable and may carry its own terms.

  • CampaigningResource libraryUnknown

    Relationships Resource Hub

    Repository of blogs, podcasts, books, frameworks, academic articles and more

    Relationships Project ↗
    Licence: none foundevidence ↗
    Why this verdict?

    Thorough investigation found no content-reuse licence anywhere on relationshipsproject.org. The homepage and the /resource-repository page carry only a charity-host notice ("THE RELATIONSHIPS PROJECT IS HOSTED BY GRAPEVINE (COVENTRY AND WARWICKSHIRE) - REGISTERED CHARITY: 1107969") with no copyright line, no "all rights reserved", and no Creative Commons badge. The only legal page that exists is a privacy policy (covers personal data only); /terms, /terms-of-use, /copyright, /license, /legal, /about(/our-work) yield nothing relevant and most return HTTP 404. A search hit's phrase "All of our work is open and everyone is welcome to get involved" (on /about/our-work/) refers to open participation/collaboration, not a content licence. Raw-HTML grep surfaced only third-party software licences for bundled front-end code (animate.css "Copyright (c) 2015 Daniel Eden", GPL v2, MIT) — these govern the site's code, not its content. Two important caveats: (1) the "Resource Repository" is largely a curated directory of links to THIRD-PARTY content (SSIR, The Guardian, Substack, Medium, Psychology Today, etc.), each governed by its own publisher's terms, not by this site — so extracting/storing those items is a separate per-source question; (2) for the Relationships Project's OWN materials (e.g. Bridge Builder's Handbook, Relationships Heatmap) no licence is stated either. With no explicit reuse grant, default copyright applies, but because there is genuinely no clear signal the conservative verdict is unknown rather than restricted; reuse would require confirming with [email protected]. This is triage, not legal advice.

  • CampaigningResource libraryRestricted

    Resource center

    Resource center

    Leading Change Network ↗
    Licence: All Rights Reservedevidence ↗
    Why this verdict?

    The site footer (present identically on the homepage, the /resource-center/ index, and individual resource pages like /resource_center/what-is-organizing/) reads "© 2026 — Copyright All Rights reserved," with no Creative Commons badge, licence page, or reuse statement found. This is independently corroborated by the Commons Library third-party resource catalog, which lists the licence for this exact Leading Change Network resource-center content as "All Rights Reserved." No per-resource CC licensing or open-reuse language was found on any page checked.

  • CampaigningResource libraryRestricted

    Resource libraries

    Cyber security, digital inclusion and responsible-AI guides for charities

    Charity Digital ↗
    Licence: All rights reserved (site-wide); isolated CC BY-NC exception on one resource pageevidence ↗
    Why this verdict?

    Charity Digital's Terms and Conditions restrict reuse: materials may be printed for personal purposes only, with any other use requiring express written permission. One resource page (the Copyright Fact Sheet, under /resources/ rather than the three topic hubs scraped) states CC BY-NC — an inconsistent exception, not the general policy. The adapter records a per-item Licence in taxonomy wherever a page states one; none of the 117 items in the cyber-security, digital-inclusion and conscious-ai hubs does, so they fall under the site-wide terms. Per the project decision there is no licence gating: this is recorded as provenance.

  • CampaigningResource libraryRestricted

    Resource library

    Library with content spanning HR, Marketing, Business Planning, DEI, etc

    Locality: the power of community ↗
    Licence: none foundevidence ↗
    Why this verdict?

    Locality's Terms & Conditions (https://locality.org.uk/terms-and-conditions) explicitly govern content reuse and are restrictive: "This website contains material which is owned by or licensed to us... Reproduction is prohibited other than in accordance with the copyright notice, which forms part of these terms and conditions," and "Unauthorised use of this website may give rise to a claim for damages and/or be a criminal offence." No reuse grant, "free to use/share/adapt" statement, or Creative Commons badge/link appears anywhere I looked: the homepage and /resources footers (only charity/company registration text), the privacy policy (personal-data only), or three individual resource pages (Energy efficiency checklist, Pathways to Good Work toolkit page, and the toolkit PDF itself) - none carried a per-item open licence. A targeted web search surfaced no Locality-specific licence. This is a default all-rights-reserved posture with reproduction prohibited, so I assess it as restricted (link-only). Caveats: the referenced "copyright notice" itself was not separately published/exposed, so the precise scope of permitted exceptions is undefined; this is a site-wide read and a specific resource could in principle carry its own licence (none seen); and many downloadable PDFs embed third-party material whose rights differ. Triage only, not legal advice.

  • CampaigningResource libraryRestricted

    Resource library

    Compilation of resources for organising, communicating and navigating movement building

    NEON ↗
    Licence: All rights reservedevidence ↗
    Why this verdict?

    NEON's Terms of Use explicitly states the site and its content (copyrights, patents, trademarks) are owned by NEON and that "no part of the Site may be copied, reproduced, distributed, republished, downloaded, displayed, posted or transmitted in any form or by any means." The homepage footer shows a plain "© 2026 NEON" notice with no Creative Commons badge, and a sampled resource page (Spokesperson Handbook, hosted via Google Drive) carries no per-item licence override. No search results indicate any CC or open-licensing statement for NEON's resources.

  • CampaigningResource libraryRestricted

    Resources

    Compilation of tools, templates and resources for civil society

    The Social Change Nest ↗
    Licence: All rights reservedevidence ↗
    Why this verdict?

    Checked the resources index and two individual resource pages (Collaborative Leadership Canvas, Payment for Involvement Playbook); all show the same footer notice "© 2017 – 2025 The Social Change Nest CIC" with no Creative Commons, OGL, or "free to reuse/share/adapt" language. A full WordPress REST API pull of the site's 111 pages confirms there is no dedicated terms/licence/copyright page — only Privacy, Safeguarding, Complaints, Data Protection, and Whistleblowing policies, none of which grant content reuse rights.

  • CampaigningResource libraryUnknown

    Resources and case studies

    Case studies from organisations which are cobudgeting

    Cobudget ↗
    Licence: none foundevidence ↗
    Why this verdict?

    No content-reuse licence is stated anywhere I could verify. The footer on every page only says "You are using Cobudget. Source code available online" (linking to GitHub) with links to Privacy Policy and Terms & Conditions, but carries no copyright notice or Creative Commons badge. The /terms-and-conditions and /about pages are client-side rendered and returned only the page shell across direct, repeat, and text-proxy fetches, so I could not read any IP/content clause to cite either way. Two actual resource pages (the "5 steps" guide and the Enspiral case study) show author attribution ("By Francesca Pick") and "SEE ORIGINAL ARTICLE" links to external Medium/Greaterthan publications, but no per-item licence, copyright line, or reuse permission. Crucially, the GitHub repo's AGPL-3.0-or-later licence governs the software code only, not the website's editorial content, so it is not an open-content signal. Caveats: the unreadable T&C body may contain an all-rights-reserved or IP clause I could not access; and the resources include third-party republished content that would carry its own separate rights regardless of any site-wide terms. Triage only, not legal advice.

  • CampaigningResource libraryRestricted

    Resources: key questions and drivers of social change

    Theoretical guide on the key questions and drivers of social change

    The Social Change Agency ↗
    Licence: none found (all-rights-reserved copyright; "Copyright © 2026 The Social Change Agency Limited")evidence ↗
    Why this verdict?

    Every page of thesocialchangeagency.org (homepage, /resources/, and the individual resource pages I opened: Movement Building Canvas, Lost Voices toolkit, Power Mapping Canvas) carries only a generic footer notice — "Copyright © 2026. This Website is owned and operated by The Social Change Agency Limited..." — with no Creative Commons badge, OGL, public-domain dedication, or any "free to use/share/adapt" statement. Candidate licence pages (/terms, /terms-of-use, /copyright, /legal, /license, /licence) all return HTTP 404; only a Privacy policy and About page exist, and the privacy policy's sole "licence" mention is "driving licence" as identity proof, with no content-reuse clause. A web search surfaced CC-licensed toolkits only from differently-named organisations (notably thechangeagency.org, CC BY-NC-SA) — not from this site — so they must not be conflated. Being conservative, default all-rights-reserved copyright applies and there is no permission to extract and store; link-only is the safe posture. Caveats: assessment is site-wide (toolkits are gated behind HubSpot download forms not completed, so a downloaded PDF could in theory carry its own terms); this is triage, not legal advice.

  • CampaigningResource libraryUnknown

    Self Defence resource library

    Collection of digital self-defence resources for activists

    The Digital Self-defence Collective ↗
    Licence: none foundevidence ↗
    Why this verdict?

    Checked the homepage footer, /resources index, /privacy, /contact, and two actual resource pages (post-arrest guide, "Basic Security in a Digital Age" zine) — none contain a copyright notice, "all rights reserved" statement, Creative Commons link, or any explicit reuse/terms language. A web search for the site plus licence terms found nothing specific. No statement either permitting or forbidding reuse was found, so neither "open" nor "restricted" criteria are met.

  • CampaigningValidated professional servicesRestricted

    Smartdesc

    IT support and proactive customer care for charities and nonprofits

    Smartdesc ↗
    Licence: none foundevidence ↗
    Why this verdict?

    Smartdesc (Academia Ltd t/a Smartdesc) is a commercial IT managed-service provider for charities; its site is marketing/blog content. I checked the homepage footer, /about-us/, /policies/, /privacy-policy, /master-services-agreement/, the /blog/ index and one full article, and probed /terms/, /terms-of-use/, /copyright/ (all 404), plus a web search. There is no open-reuse signal anywhere: no Creative Commons badge or link, no OGL/public-domain/copyleft, and no "free to use/share/adapt" statement; the only IP document (Master Services Agreement, Clause 16) reserves pre-existing IP to the supplier. Absent any licence, the content defaults to all-rights-reserved UK copyright, so I classify it restricted (link only). Caveats: this is a by-default restriction rather than an explicit terms-of-use notice, the judgement is site-wide, and embedded third-party material may carry different terms — this is triage, not legal advice.

  • CampaigningToolkitOpen

    Surveillance Self-Defense

    Tips, tools and how-tos for safer online communications

    Electronic Frontier Foundation ↗
    Licence: CC BY 4.0 (Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International)evidence ↗
    Why this verdict?

    The Surveillance Self-Defense homepage footer (ssd.eff.org, part of the eff.org site family) displays a "Copyright (CC BY)" notice linking to EFF's copyright page. That page explicitly states "Any and all original material on the EFF website may be freely distributed at will under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY)" and that "Permission to do such things is explicitly granted," with attribution required. Caveat: this applies to EFF's original material — the policy notes third-party content (e.g. some embedded images, quotes, or partner-authored material) may not be covered and would need separate clearance; I did not find a per-guide licence footer distinct from the site-wide notice, so treating this as a site-wide CC BY policy that applies to SSD content by default.

  • CampaigningToolsUnknown

    Tech Hub

    Tools Tipping Point UK offers support on

    Tipping Point UK ↗
    Licence: none foundevidence ↗
    Why this verdict?

    Checked the Tech Hub page, the site homepage footer, and the Privacy Policy page; none contain a copyright/licence statement beyond "Published by Tipping Point UK, 2021" with no CC badge or reuse language. No separate Terms/Copyright/Legal page exists on the site, and a web search for licence/terms references tied to the domain returned nothing site-specific. Note: some third-party tools recommended on the Tech Hub page (e.g. Baserow) are described as open source, but that refers to software, not Tipping Point UK's own written guidance/content.

  • CampaigningValidated professional servicesRestricted

    TechSoup

    Tech tools, training, and support for nonprofits

    TechSoup ↗
    Licence: none found (all rights reserved)evidence ↗
    Why this verdict?

    TechSoup's Terms of Use, Section 7, explicitly state: "TechSoup and its licensors own the Site and all Content therein... and all worldwide intellectual property rights relating to the foregoing," and that "Except as expressly authorized by TechSoup, you may not copy, distribute, sell, lease, perform, display, sublicense, modify or prepare derivative works of the Site or Site Content, in whole or in part. We reserve all rights not expressly granted to you." Footers on the main site and the blog read "Copyright (c) 2026, TechSoup Global. All Rights Reserved," with no Creative Commons badge or open-licence statement anywhere; a targeted web search for TechSoup content licence/reuse terms surfaced no open licence. Caveats: this is the site-wide position — individual resources may carry their own (often more permissive) per-item licences, and embedded third-party software/donations have separate vendor terms; the engage.techsoup.org community subdomain (the given source URL) is a discussion forum that returned only a login-gated title and no separate terms page, so user-posted forum content was not separately assessable, but the parent TechSoup terms apply to its non-user Site Content.

  • CampaigningForumsUnknown

    The Campaigning Forum (ECF) Community

    Global network of campaigning and advocacy practitioners

    FairSay ↗
    Licence: none found (general content); event participant photos/video/audio are CC BY-SA 2.0 UKevidence ↗
    Why this verdict?

    I checked the ECF community page, the fairsay.com homepage, the knowledge base, two real resource pages (a "web brief" guide and an ECF news post), the privacy policy, and the event-policies page; the candidate legal pages (/terms, /terms-of-use, /license, /licence, /copyright, /legal, /about) all return HTTP 404. There is no site-wide copyright notice or content-reuse licence anywhere, and the privacy policy covers only personal data. The single Creative Commons reference (CC Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 UK, on the event-policies page) is scoped strictly to participant photos/video/audio from events, and the only explicit "copy/adapt" grant is limited to cross-promotion marketing snippets — neither covers the knowledge-base guides, news posts, or toolkits a content library would extract, several of which are written by named third-party authors. With no licence signal and no explicit reuse permission for the general content after a genuine look, the conservative verdict is unknown rather than open; this is triage, not legal advice.

  • CampaigningResource libraryUnknown

    The Commons Social Change Library

    The Commons Social Change Library

    Commons Library ↗
    Licence: Mixed / per-resource (contributors choose CC BY, CC BY-NC-ND, Public Domain, or All Rights Reserved per article)evidence ↗
    Why this verdict?

    The site's own "Writing for The Commons Social Change Library" page states contributors select a licence per article - Creative Commons (including CC BY and CC BY-NC-ND) or "All Rights Reserved" - shown in a licensing box at the bottom of each resource page; this was corroborated by search results showing specific resource pages tagged "All Rights Reserved" alongside others under CC BY-NC-ND. Direct fetching of commonslibrary.org pages returned HTTP 403 (bot protection) both live and via web.archive.org, so evidence comes from search-engine summaries of page content rather than raw HTML I read myself - a human should verify by opening a resource page directly. Because there is no single site-wide licence and reuse permission must be checked per item (some open, some non-commercial/no-derivatives, some fully restricted), a blanket open/restricted verdict would be misleading; recommend per-resource licence checking before extraction.

  • CampaigningResource libraryOpen

    The Engine Room Library

    The Engine Room Library

    The Engine Room ↗
    Licence: Creative Commons — per-resource, mix of CC BY-SA 4.0 and CC BY-NC-SA 4.0evidence ↗
    Why this verdict?

    The HTML chrome of theengineroom.org (homepage, the /library/ archive, individual resource pages, and /about) shows only "Copyright © 2026. The Engine Room. All Rights Reserved" and no Creative Commons link (confirmed by raw-HTML grep), and /terms, /copyright, /legal, /privacy-policy all 404 — so the wrapper pages look all-rights-reserved. But the actual library content is the downloadable report PDFs, and every publication I sampled (2018, 2019, 2024) carries an explicit CC notice on its credits page, e.g. "The text of this work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License" (by-sa/4.0) and, for the Nov-2024 report, CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 (by-nc-sa/4.0); the Information Ecosystems subdomain footer also states CC BY-NC-SA 4.0. Since the library exists to distribute these openly-licensed publications, the content is reusable, hence open. Caveats: the licence is stated per-resource inside each PDF (not site-wide) and varies between BY-SA (adapt + commercial OK) and BY-NC-SA (non-commercial only), so each item must be checked individually; the notices license "the text of this work," so embedded third-party images/figures and any all-rights-reserved web pages are not covered. This is triage, not legal advice.

  • CampaigningValidated professional servicesUnknown

    The Relationships Map

    Directory of individuals and organisations

    Relationships Project ↗
    Licence: none foundevidence ↗
    Why this verdict?

    After a thorough pass I found no content-reuse licence for relationshipsproject.org. The homepage, the target "Relationships Map" page, and three real resource pages (Case Maker, Glossary, Resource Repository) carry no copyright, Creative Commons, or reuse statement in body, footer, or raw HTML; the footer only credits the host charity (Grapevine) and links a Privacy Policy that contains no IP/copyright clause. Standard licence/terms URLs (/terms, /terms-of-use, /copyright, /legal, /license) all return 404, and a web search surfaced no reuse terms. The only licence strings in the page source (GPL v2, MIT/animate.css) belong to the WordPress theme and JS libraries, not the editorial content. Caveat: this is a site-wide finding with no explicit grant either way — absence of a licence defaults to all-rights-reserved by copyright, so treat as link-only until confirmed; also the Resource Repository aggregates third-party resources whose own licences differ (per-item check needed). Conservatively classed unknown rather than restricted because no notice was located after a genuine look; contacting [email protected] would resolve it.

  • CampaigningPlaybooks/guides/toolkitsOpen

    Toolbox

    Campaigning toolbox

    Beautiful Trouble ↗
    Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 4.0evidence ↗
    Why this verdict?

    Both the homepage footer and an individual toolbox tactic page (banner-hang) carry an identical notice: "Beautiful Trouble by Beautiful Trouble, various authors is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License," linking to creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/. This is independently corroborated by a 2017 Creative Commons blog post specifically describing Beautiful Trouble's toolbox and book content as openly licensed under CC BY-NC-SA. Note the licence is NonCommercial and ShareAlike, so downstream commercial reuse and mixing with differently-licensed content would need care, though it qualifies as "open" per CC licence criteria.

  • CampaigningSubscriptions (youtube, newsletters, publications)Open

    Toolkits

    Guides for a quick start on key activities in community work

    Community Tool Box ↗
    Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 4.0evidence ↗
    Why this verdict?

    The Community Tool Box (ctb.ku.edu) carries a site-wide footer notice "Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License" linking to creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/, confirmed on the homepage, the toolkit table-of-contents page, and an individual toolkit resource page (no differing per-item licence observed). CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 is a recognized open/free-culture licence that explicitly permits copying, redistributing, and adapting the material, so extracting and storing content for an internal, non-commercial library is permitted — subject to attribution (APA-style citation requested), non-commercial use only, and ShareAlike on any adaptations. Caveat: the site's "Use Policy" adds friction that partly conflicts with the CC grant (it says files cannot be altered or distributed without written permission, and requires contact/fees for commercial use, paid workshops, and republication in printed publications); if your use is non-commercial internal reference this is open, but commercial redistribution or printed republication would need direct permission. Further caveat: the licence applies to CTB's own content, not any embedded third-party material, and the "© All Rights Reserved" line alongside the CC badge is the standard CC pattern, not a contradiction.

  • CampaigningPlaybooks/guides/toolkitsRestricted

    Trainings for campaigners

    Trainings for campaigners

    Social Movement Technologies ↗
    Licence: All rights reserved (bare copyright notice, no explicit statement)evidence ↗
    Why this verdict?

    Direct WebFetch to the site was blocked (403), so content was retrieved via r.jina.ai proxy. The homepage footer shows only a bare "©2026" notice with no Creative Commons badge or licence link. Checked the privacy policy, several resource/testimonial pages, and the full page-sitemap.xml (300+ URLs, no dedicated terms-of-use or licence page exists) — no page anywhere states a reuse, share, or adapt permission, which per the task's definition of restricted (© with no reuse permission) supports that verdict, though this is inferred from absence of any statement rather than an explicit "all rights reserved" wording.

  • CampaigningPlaybooks/guides/toolkitsRestricted

    Useful resources for running a co-op

    Useful resources for running a co-op

    Cooperation Town ↗
    Licence: none found (bare "© Cooperation Town 2026" copyright notice)evidence ↗
    Why this verdict?

    I went well beyond the homepage: the resources page and every page checked carry only a bare footer notice "© Cooperation Town 2026" with no reuse grant. All standard licence/terms pages (/terms, /terms-of-use, /license, /licence, /copyright, /legal, /privacy) return HTTP 404, and the /about, /organise and /coop-town-hub content hubs contain no licensing or reuse language. An actual resource (the General Poster PDF) carries no embedded licence, and there are no Creative Commons badges or creativecommons.org/licenses links anywhere. Two web searches found no licence terms either. Under a conservative reading this is all-rights-reserved (restricted): copyright is asserted and no permission to extract/store is stated. Caveats: (1) this is a site-wide assessment — the site invites co-ops to "use and adapt" its Starter Pack in spirit, so an explicit licence may exist off-site or be obtainable by asking; (2) many listed "resources" are third-party links (Seeds for Change, The Decider, kin.coop, Google Docs) that carry their own separate licences and must be assessed individually, not under cooperation.town's terms.

  • CampaigningPlaybooks/guides/toolkitsOpen

    What do you need to protect?

    List of key resources for campaigners on digital security

    Security in a box ↗
    Licence: CC BY-SA 4.0evidence ↗
    Why this verdict?

    The homepage footer of securityinabox.org explicitly states "This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International" with a direct link to creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/. This is a site-wide notice applying to the guide content published by Front Line Defenders. A secondary web search reference mentioned an older "CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported" label, indicating the license was updated to 4.0 over time; the current live footer is treated as authoritative.

  • CampaigningPlaybooks/guides/toolkitsUnknown

    Wiki guidance to set up co-ops

    Wiki guidance to set up co-ops

    Radical Routes ↗
    Licence: none foundevidence ↗
    Why this verdict?

    The Radical Routes co-ops wiki (MediaWiki 1.45.3, Citizen skin) carries no content-reuse signal anywhere I looked. The homepage footer omits the standard MediaWiki copyright slot entirely (only site description, Privacy/About/Disclaimers links, a 'get involved in developing this wiki' tagline, and a 'Powered by MediaWiki' icon). The three footer policy pages are unconfigured defaults: About is a 'To be written' stub, and General_disclaimer/Privacy_policy/Project:Copyrights return 404. Two real resource pages (Forming_a_group, Loan_stock) contain zero copyright/licence/Creative Commons/attribution markers in their HTML, so there is no per-item licence either; a web search and the parent org's resources page also yielded no reuse terms. Caveats: this is a site-wide finding and silence is not permission, so I treat it conservatively as unknown rather than open; the GPL on Special:Version covers only the MediaWiki software, not the content; the wiki invites editing/contribution but says nothing about extracting and re-publishing content. Triage only, not legal advice — confirm with the Radical Routes Digital Working group before reuse.

  • CampaigningResource libraryOpen

    Written guides

    Guides designed to help create more effective campaigns, co-ops or projects

    Seeds for Change ↗
    Licence: Anti-copyright (copyleft share-alike statement; no formal named licence)evidence ↗
    Why this verdict?

    The guides index page (the cited source) carries an explicit, unambiguous site-wide reuse grant for the content in scope: "All Seeds for Change guides are anti-copyright. Feel free to copy, adapt, use and distribute them, as long as the final work remains anti-copyright." This is a free/open copyleft statement (explicit permission to copy, adapt and distribute) with a single share-alike condition that derivatives stay anti-copyright, plus a non-binding request to be notified of translations. The statement was confirmed verbatim on two fetches and corroborated by third parties (Activist Handbook, Commons Library). Caveats: the declaration lives on the /guides listing page and applies to "all guides"; individual guide pages and the homepage do not repeat it, and there is no named licence (e.g. CC) or dedicated /copyright or /terms page (both returned 404 / nothing). The grant covers Seeds for Change's own guide content only; any embedded third-party material would need separate checking. This is triage, not legal advice.

  • CampaigningMembership orgsUnknown

    Youth and local groups

    Network of local organising groups

    Global Justice Now ↗
    Licence: none foundevidence ↗
    Why this verdict?

    I checked the source page and homepage footers (only company/charity registration numbers, no copyright or Creative Commons notice), probed standard terms URLs (/terms/, /terms-and-conditions/, /terms-of-use/, /copyright/, /license/ all return 404; no terms-of-use page exists), the privacy policy (GDPR/data only, no IP or reuse clause), the about page, the resource library, and two actual resource pages (a leaflet and the activist-guides hub) — none state any per-item or site-wide licence, and no creativecommons.org links appear anywhere. A web search for the site name plus licence/reuse terms returned nothing specific. There is no signal either way: no explicit free/open reuse grant and no explicit all-rights-reserved statement, so under a conservative reading this is unknown rather than restricted. Caveats: this reflects the site as crawled today (note the materials carry future-dated 2026 timestamps, suggesting recent/possibly mirrored content); a licence could exist in PDF resource files or a print/staff handbook not surfaced on the HTML pages, and any reuse would still need to exclude embedded third-party material (e.g. quoted statements, partner logos). This is triage, not legal advice.

  • CampaigningTrainingsOpen

    e-Learning courses

    Data and digital e-learning courses for activists (channel archive; org no longer active)

    Advocacy Assembly ↗
    Licence: CC BY (Creative Commons Attribution)evidence ↗
    Why this verdict?

    Correction to the initial triage, which inferred all-rights-reserved from the defunct org's cached terms page. Every video sampled (9 of them) states 'Creative Commons Attribution licence (reuse allowed)' in its own watch-page metadata row — the videos themselves carry CC BY regardless of what the old site said. Per-video licence is recorded in taxonomy by the adapter.