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 24HR 2Immigration 2Campaigning 18Newsletter 2
LicenceAll 94Open 21Restricted 48Unknown 24Unclassified 1

24 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 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.

  • 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.

  • ImmigrationToolsUnknown

    Can I vote

    Tool to find out if people can vote in UK elections

    Just Register / Citizens UK / Migrant Democracy Project ↗
    Licence: none foundevidence ↗
    Why this verdict?

    Can I Vote? is a UK voter-eligibility tool run jointly by Citizens UK, the Migrant Democracy Project, and Just Register. The XML sitemap (page-sitemap.xml) enumerates the entire site as just four pages — home, /privacy-policy/, /results-vote-check/, and /faqs/ — so coverage here is effectively complete. None of these pages carries any copyright notice (no © symbol, no "all rights reserved"), Creative Commons badge, or content-reuse statement; the homepage footer links only to Privacy Policy, FAQs, About Just Register, and Donate. Candidate licence/terms paths (/terms, /terms-of-use, /license, /copyright, /legal, /about) all return HTTP 404, the actual resource page (/faqs/, the substantive guidance content) states no per-item licence, and the only legal document on the site — the privacy policy — is silent on copyright, IP, or reuse. A targeted web search for the site's licence terms returned nothing site-specific. With no permission granted (so not "open") and yet no explicit all-rights-reserved assertion either, plus the practical reality that the content likely embeds UK electoral/government eligibility material whose rights sit elsewhere, the conservative verdict is unknown. Caveat: assessment is site-wide; no per-resource licence exists, and absence of a notice does not imply reuse permission — under UK law content is copyright by default even without a notice.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • HRPlaybooks/guides/toolkitsUnknown

    From conflict to co-operation

    Written guide on conflict management and resolution

    People Support Co-op ↗
    Licence: none foundevidence ↗
    Why this verdict?

    After a thorough look I found no content-reuse licence in either direction. The source page (/from-conflict-to-cooperation/) and a second resource page (/chapter-2-communication/) carry no copyright, licence, or reuse text; the homepage footer states only co-op registration details (Registered Society 4779) plus Privacy and Contact links, with no copyright notice or Creative Commons badge. Standard paths /terms/, /terms-of-use/, /copyright/, /legal/, /licence/ all return HTTP 404, the privacy policy covers only GDPR/cookies, and the full page sitemap (22 URLs) contains no terms/licence/copyright/legal page; a web search surfaced no licensing policy. There is no CC/OGL/public-domain or "free to use" grant, but also no explicit all-rights-reserved statement, so the signal is genuinely absent — caveat: this is a site-wide assessment, per-resource or embedded third-party terms could differ, and reuse might be grantable via their contact page.

  • NewsletterSubscriptions (youtube, newsletters, publications)Unknown

    Healing Justice LDN newsletter

    Newsletter on community healing and somatic practices

    Healing Justice LDN ↗
    Licence: none foundevidence ↗
    Why this verdict?

    The source link is a Mailchimp newsletter signup for Healing Justice LDN, whose actual site is healingjusticeldn.org. I checked the homepage, About, Privacy Policy, and Accessibility Disclaimer, plus two actual resource pages (methodology/anchoring-resilience and methodology/community-agreements), and probed /terms, /terms-of-use, /copyright, /legal (all HTTP 404). The footer site-wide contains only Accessibility Disclaimer, Donate, Newsletter, and Privacy Policy links — no copyright notice, no Creative Commons badge, and no terms-of-use page. A raw-HTML grep of the homepage for copyright/(c)/Creative Commons/all-rights-reserved/licence/terms/reuse strings returned nothing, and web searches surfaced no licensing declaration. Verdict is unknown (conservative): there is no licence granting reuse (so not open) and no explicit all-rights-reserved/terms statement either (so not a documented restricted). Caveats: this is a site-wide assessment as of 2026-06-01; individual resources (e.g. the Resilience Toolkit, or downloadable PDFs not surfaced here) and embedded third-party quotes may carry their own terms, and UK works are protected by copyright by default absent an explicit licence — so reuse cannot be assumed. Triage only, not legal advice; recommend emailing [email protected] before extracting/storing content.

  • 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.

  • HRValidated professional servicesUnknown

    Pro bono services and free resources for charities

    Pro bono services and free resources for charities

    Cranfield Trust ↗
    Licence: none foundevidence ↗
    Why this verdict?

    After a thorough crawl I found no content-reuse licence anywhere on cranfieldtrust.org. The site-wide footer (identical across the homepage, source page, privacy and key-policies pages) shows only charity/company registration numbers plus Privacy, Accessibility, and Fundraising Regulator links — there is no Terms of Use or Copyright link, and every standard URL (/terms, /terms-of-use, /license, /licence, /copyright, /legal, /about-us, /sitemap.xml) returns 404. The privacy policy has no IP clause; the only adjacent statement is an accuracy disclaimer on /pages/resources, not a licence; and no Creative Commons badge appears on the index, category, or individual resource pages. I judged this "unknown" rather than "restricted" because there is genuine silence (no reuse permission, but also no explicit all-rights-reserved/no-reuse statement) — UK works default to all-rights-reserved copyright by law, so the safe posture is link-only, not extract-and-store. Caveats: this is site-wide silence and could be overridden per resource; importantly many "resources" are curated links to third-party content (VWV, Third Sector, NCVO, ACAS, CIPD, gov.uk, S3-hosted PDFs) carrying their own copyright; and the Creative Commons hits from web search were for Cranfield University, a different institution, not this charity.

  • 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 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 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.

  • ImmigrationValidated professional servicesUnknown

    Services menu

    Services by a migrant-led design agency

    Migrants in Culture ↗
    Licence: none foundevidence ↗
    Why this verdict?

    After a full investigation there is no content-reuse signal of any kind on migrantsinculture.com (a Squarespace-hosted UK arts/activism site). The homepage footer has no copyright notice, Creative Commons badge, or licence text; every standard legal page (/terms, /terms-of-use, /privacy, /legal, /copyright, /about) returns 404, and the sitemap confirms no terms/legal page exists anywhere. The actual content-bearing pages (/resources, /saturdayschoolresources, /posterbank, /research-and-strategic-projects) carry no per-item licence, CC link, or "free to use/share/adapt" statement, and a raw-HTML check found no creativecommons.org link (the only "license" string is Squarespace's internal data-licensed-asset-preview attribute, unrelated to reuse). A web search surfaced no site-specific reuse terms. Because there is neither an open-licence grant nor an explicit all-rights-reserved notice, the result is genuinely unknown. Caveats: this is a site-wide assessment with no per-resource grants found; many listed resources are third-party (e.g. the SKNB workbook hosted at sknb.org, Design Justice Network zines, named-author books), whose rights are separate; and under UK law content is copyright by default absent any licence, so extraction/storage should not be assumed permitted without contacting [email protected]. Triage only, not legal advice.

  • NewsletterToolsUnknown

    TON Hub

    Digital organising and strategies

    Tectonica ↗
    Licence: none foundevidence ↗
    Why this verdict?

    TON Hub (TON = Tectonica Organizing Network) at tectonica.co/ton_hub is a curated knowledge hub run by the agency Tectonica, aggregating a resource library (/ton_resources), the recurring TON Newsletter, curated videos, and blog posts about progressive digital organising. I investigated beyond the homepage: the site is a Next.js + DatoCMS app where every unknown path returns an identical 187,298-byte SPA fallback shell, so a 200 status does not prove a page exists. By comparing RSC payload sizes and checking the 91-URL sitemap, I confirmed there is NO /terms, /terms-of-use, /privacy, /legal, /copyright, or /license page (only a real /cookies page, which contains no reuse/IP language). No Creative Commons badge/link, no 'all rights reserved' notice, and no 'free to use/share/adapt' statement appears anywhere on the homepage, ton_hub, or ton_resources (the only 'copyright' strings found were inside newsletter articles discussing OpenAI's Sora policy, not a site licence). The sole terms document on the site is the NationBuilder Marketplace Theme Terms & Conditions, which is scoped to Tectonica's paid themes product ('By purchasing products or services... on the NationBuilder Marketplace') and does not mention or govern TON Hub content; a targeted web search surfaced no reuse licence either. Because there is neither an open-reuse grant nor an explicit all-rights-reserved/site terms governing the hub, the conservative result is unknown rather than open or restricted. Caveat: even setting aside Tectonica's own copyright, a large share of TON Hub is third-party material it merely links/summarises (Democracy Hub, Higher Ground Institute, WSJ, etc.), which would carry the original publishers' separate licences; this is triage, not legal advice.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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/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.

  • 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.