Sources
83 sources in the catalog, triaged by content-reuse licence (83 done) — openmeans we may extract & store the content, restricted means link-only, unknown means no clear signal was found. Filter by area or licence.
18 of 83 sources (filtered · clear)
- 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.
- 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 info@breakthroughimpact.org.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.)
- 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.
- 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.
- CampaigningResource libraryRestricted
Resource center
Resource center
Leading Change Network ↗Licence: Site-wide: "© 2026 — Copyright All Rights reserved" (no site-wide open licence). Per-item exceptions exist, e.g. one resource tagged "Creative Commonsevidence ↗Why this verdict?
Attribution-ShareAlike" (CC BY-SA). - The site-wide posture is all-rights-reserved: the footer on the homepage, resource-center, privacy-policy and about pages reads "© 2026 — Copyright All Rights reserved", there is no Creative Commons badge site-wide, and dedicated /terms, /terms-of-use, /license, /copyright and /legal pages all return HTTP 404 (the privacy policy is silent on content reuse). So there is no blanket permission to extract and store the library — treat it as restricted. However, licensing is actually per-resource: detail pages carry a structured "License" field, and these are inconsistent. "Story, Strategy, Structure" declares "Creative Commons - Attribution-ShareAlike" (open, though access is member-only), whereas "Movement Memo", "Story Canvases" and "What is Organizing?" have no licence field and several are third-party content (Climate Justice Organizing HUB, Commons Social Change Library, New Organizing Institute, individual authors who ask to be contacted directly). Caveats: (1) judge reuse item-by-item, not site-wide — individual items bearing an explicit open licence may be extractable; (2) the CC label is taken verbatim from the page's own metadata field but I could not confirm a linked creativecommons.org deed, so the exact CC version is unverified; (3) much content is embedded/third-party and the LCN footer may not govern it. This is triage, not legal advice.
- 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: none found (all-rights-reserved; "© 2026 NEON")evidence ↗Why this verdict?
NEON's site-wide Terms of Use are explicitly all-rights-reserved: "all the intellectual property rights, including copyrights... in the Site and its content are owned by NEON or NEON's suppliers" and "no part of the Site may be copied, reproduced, distributed, republished, downloaded, displayed, posted or transmitted in any form or by any means," granting only "limited access rights" and prohibiting commercial exploitation. The homepage and /resources footers show only "© 2026 NEON" with no Creative Commons badge or reuse statement, and a web search surfaced no separate open-licensing policy. Caveats: the /resources page is JavaScript-rendered so I could not open individual toolkit/PDF detail pages, which could in theory carry their own per-item licence (none observed); embedded third-party content would have separate terms. This is triage, not legal advice — but the explicit prohibition on copying/downloading means we should link only, not extract and store.
- CampaigningResource libraryRestricted
Resources
Compilation of tools, templates and resources for civil society
The Social Change Nest ↗Licence: none found (all-rights-reserved: "© 2017 – 2025 The Social Change Nest CIC")evidence ↗Why this verdict?
Every page on thesocialchangenest.org (homepage, /resources/, and the terms/terms-of-use/copyright/privacy/about pages) carries only a standard all-rights-reserved notice — "© 2017 – 2025 The Social Change Nest CIC Company No: 12611737" — with no Creative Commons badge, no licence/terms-of-service page in the footer nav, and no "free to use/share/adapt" grant. A targeted web search returned nothing specific to the site's licensing. Under the conservative rule, copyright with no stated reuse permission = restricted, so the Nest's own content should be link-only, not extracted and stored. Major caveat: the /resources/ page is mostly a curated hub linking to OTHER domains (thesocialchangeagency.org canvases, radhr.org, relationshipsproject.org, opencollective, cobudget, breakthroughimpact.org, etc.); each of those destinations carries its own licence and must be assessed separately — this verdict covers only content authored/hosted by thesocialchangenest.org itself. (Direct curl checks returned 403 from a bot-blocking WAF, so HTTP status could not confirm page existence; the browser-rendered fetches are the reliable signal and showed no reuse terms.)
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.