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 21HR 3Immigration 2Campaigning 13Newsletter 3
LicenceAll 94Open 21Restricted 48Unknown 24Unclassified 1

21 of 94 sources (filtered · clear)

  • 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.

  • HRPlaybooks/guides/toolkitsOpen

    Chayn's trauma-informed design principles

    Principles for trauma-informed design across systems, products and processes

    Chayn ↗
    Licence: Creative Commons or MIT License (variant unspecified)evidence ↗
    Why this verdict?

    Chayn's own policy page carries a section explicitly headed "Content license" stating verbatim: "All of Chayn's products and services are under a Creative Commons or MIT License. This does not cover the products of other organisations." This is an explicit free/open reuse grant, reinforced by Chayn's GitHub org (github.com/chaynhq) describing itself as "Proudly open-source" with repositories under MIT. The homepage footer shows only the charity registration ("Chayn CIO. UK Charity Number: 1196098") and there is no dedicated /terms page (it 404s), so the licence signal comes from the policies page. Caveats: (1) the statement is blanket and does not name the specific CC variant (e.g. BY vs BY-SA vs BY-NC) or which works are CC vs MIT, so per-resource attribution/non-commercial conditions may apply and should be checked per item before reuse; (2) it expressly excludes third-party content, and the resources library aggregates material from other organisations (BBC, Rights of Women, LGBT Foundation, Me Too, etc.) which is NOT covered. The whitepaper in the source URL is Chayn's own work and so falls under this open grant, but the exact CC terms are unstated. This is triage, not legal advice.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • ImmigrationPlaybooks/guides/toolkitsOpen

    Migrant Digital Justice Toolkit

    Migrant Digital Justice Toolkit

    Open Rights Group ↗
    Licence: Custom "Free to reuse except where stated" statement (no formal/named licence)evidence ↗
    Why this verdict?

    Every page I checked on migranttoolkit.uk carries the same footer notice: "©. Free to reuse except where stated." This explicit free-to-reuse permission appears site-wide - on the homepage, on section pages (what-are-digital-rights, how-it-works), and on an actual resource page (the MRN Know Your Rights guide) - so it is the operative content-reuse signal for the site, which is run by the Open Rights Group. It is a custom statement, not a named/formal licence: there is no Creative Commons badge or link anywhere, and dedicated /terms, /terms-of-use, /license, /licence, and /copyright pages all return HTTP 404. Caveat: the licence is owner-stated and explicitly conditional ("except where stated"), so individual resources - especially third-party/embedded materials reproduced from other organisations (e.g. JCWI, Migrants' Rights Network), interview transcripts, and government legislation excerpts - may carry their own restrictions or be reserved; each item should be checked for a per-resource notice before extraction, and original authorship credited. This is triage, not legal advice.

  • NewsletterSubscriptions (youtube, newsletters, publications)Open

    MobLab Dispatch

    Round-up of stories, resources, opportunities and discussions about changemaking

    Mobilisation Lab ↗
    Licence: CC BY 4.0evidence ↗
    Why this verdict?

    MobLab / MobilisationLab states a site-wide open licence in its footer: "Except where noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License," linking to creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. I confirmed this identical notice on the homepage, the newsletters source page, the About page, and a sampled resource page (Mobilisation Integration Toolkit), and verified the link resolves to the genuine CC BY 4.0 deed (share + adapt, even commercially, with attribution). Extraction and storage are permitted with attribution. Two caveats: (1) the "except where noted" clause means individual resources can carry a different licence, so each stored item should be checked for an overriding per-resource note before reuse; (2) embedded third-party material (images, quoted content) may not be covered by the site's CC BY licence.

  • 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.

  • HRResource libraryOpen

    Policy library

    Policy library

    RadHR ↗
    Licence: CC BY-SA 4.0evidence ↗
    Why this verdict?

    RadHR's site-wide footer carries the notice "Creative Commons BY-SA 4.0 (c) 2026 RadHR" with a real hyperlink to creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ (verified directly in the homepage HTML via curl, not just rendered text), and the dedicated /terms/ page restates and links the same licence. The site self-describes as "a free, open & collaborative collection of policies & processes," consistent with CC BY-SA 4.0, which permits extracting, storing, and adapting content provided attribution is given and derivatives are shared under the same licence. Caveat: the licence appears site-wide rather than per-resource, and the about page notes most policies are contributed by 40+ community groups; embedded third-party material could carry different terms, so attribution + ShareAlike obligations and spot-checks on individual items are advisable.

  • NewsletterSubscriptions (youtube, newsletters, publications)Open

    Right to Remain (newsletter)

    Immigration and asylum news, information, updates, events and campaigns

    Right to Remain ↗
    Licence: CC BY-NC 4.0evidence ↗
    Why this verdict?

    Right to Remain's dedicated Permissions page states verbatim: "Right to Remain's work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License," granting freedom to copy, share and adapt the material for non-commercial purposes with attribution, and links to creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/. The homepage/newsletter footers carry no inline licence but link to this Permissions page. The identical CC BY-NC 4.0 notice also appears on the actual Toolkit resource page, confirming the licence applies both site-wide and per-resource. Caveat: it is a NonCommercial licence (reuse only for non-commercial purposes, attribution required), and the licence text notes no explicit carve-outs, though embedded third-party material (e.g. images credited to others) could carry separate terms.

  • HRPlaybooks/guides/toolkitsOpen

    Safeguarding guidance

    Safeguarding guidance

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

    NCVO's copyright page is explicit: "We want the information on our website to be used widely, so we've chosen to make it available under a Creative Commons license" — specifically the Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International Licence (links to creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/), stating "you can use, adapt and re-publish content on this website however you like" with credit and share-alike, but "can't make commercial use." This is a recognised open licence, so extracting and storing the safeguarding guidance is permitted. The terms-and-conditions page's "reproduction is prohibited" clause does not conflict: it explicitly defers to the copyright notice ("which forms part of these terms and conditions") and scopes its prohibition to the site's design/look-and-feel/graphics and to paid event materials, not the guidance text. The safeguarding page itself is original NCVO content ("free to all" access, no third-party attributions). Caveats: the NonCommercial and ShareAlike conditions bind — stored copies need attribution and the same licence and cannot be used for commercial advantage; the licence covers NCVO content but not site branding/graphics or event materials, and any page embedding third-party material could carry different terms.

  • NewsletterSubscriptions (youtube, newsletters, publications)Open

    Skills for Care

    Round-up of sector news, trainings, etc

    Skills for Care ↗
    Licence: Custom permissive terms: "freely reproduced with acknowledgment for education and training purposes" (non-commercial, attribution required) — not a named licenceevidence ↗
    Why this verdict?

    The requested URL (id.skillsforcare.org.uk) 301-redirects to connect.skillsforcare.org.uk, a login gateway whose footer carries the site-wide notice "© Skills for Care 2026. All rights reserved." Taken alone that reads restricted, but the linked Terms and conditions contain an explicit reuse grant, which I verified verbatim twice: "Material from this website may be freely reproduced with acknowledgment for education and training purposes, but may not be used for sale or profit without the written permission of Skills for Care." That is an express "free to reproduce" permission (attribution + non-commercial), so it qualifies as open under the brief's definition. Caveats: (1) it is a custom statement, not a named/standard licence (no Creative Commons, OGL, or public-domain badge was found anywhere); (2) it is conditioned on acknowledgment AND non-commercial use — extract-and-store for an internal, non-profit resource library is permitted, but onward commercial use is not; (3) it is site-wide for skillsforcare.org.uk content and says "unless stated otherwise," so individual resources or embedded third-party material may carry different terms and should be checked per item; (4) the target id./connect. subdomain is itself a gated service, so this verdict covers Skills for Care published website/resource content, not account-only material. 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.

  • 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.

  • ImmigrationPlaybooks/guides/toolkitsOpen

    The Right to Remain Toolkit

    The Right to Remain Toolkit

    Right to Remain ↗
    Licence: CC BY-NC 4.0 (Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International)evidence ↗
    Why this verdict?

    The Right to Remain Toolkit explicitly carries a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International licence. The toolkit landing page and individual resource pages all embed the standard CC machine-readable markup (rel="license" linking to creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ with the 88x31 CC badge) plus the verbatim text: "This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. You are free to copy, share, adapt, use the material for non-commercial purposes" subject to Attribution and NonCommercial conditions. A dedicated site-wide /permissions/ page restates the same licence, so it is not limited to a single resource. This is an open Creative Commons licence, so extracting and storing the content is permitted. Caveats: (1) reuse must be non-commercial and must credit Right to Remain with a link to the licence and indication of any changes, not implying endorsement; (2) the licence covers Right to Remain's own toolkit content — any embedded third-party material (images, quoted documents) may carry separate rights; (3) this is licensing triage, not legal advice.

  • 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/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.

  • 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.

  • 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.