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.
16 of 83 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?
Action Network Organisers is a one-page community hub (run by "Small Axe") whose "resource library" is an embedded, crowdsourced Airtable of templates/datasets/case studies. The homepage has no copyright notice, no Creative Commons badge, and no Terms/Licence/Copyright footer links, and all guessed legal pages (/terms, /terms-of-use, /copyright, /about, /legal, /license, /privacy, robots.txt, sitemap.xml) return HTTP 404; web searches surfaced no licence terms. The only relevant phrasing is "An open and crowdsourced space ... we've collectively found or created" — "open" here means open-access/viewable, not a reuse grant (no "free to use/share/adapt" or CC/OGL wording). Because content is crowdsourced and "found or created" (largely third-party), and no licence is stated, the reuse status is unknown; per-resource licences inside the Airtable/external links could not be rendered by the fetch tool and would need item-by-item checking before any extraction.
- 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 (info@socialchangelab.org) 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 boop@autonomic.zone to confirm.
- 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.
- 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.
- CampaigningResource libraryUnknown
How to' guides
Network of anti-oppressive organizers from around the world that share their skills
Blueprints for Change ↗Licence: none foundevidence ↗Why this verdict?
Thorough pass beyond the homepage: the homepage footer carries no copyright notice, no "all rights reserved," and no Creative Commons badge/link (verified in both rendered text and raw HTML), and the standard legal pages all return HTTP 404 (/terms, /license, /privacy; no /copyright or /legal in nav). The /about and /guides archive carry no licence text. The only reuse signal anywhere on the site appears on individual guide pages (e.g. organizing-against-far-right, activist-digital-security) and the manual: guides "can be downloaded and shared freely among progressives" / "offered as a free download." That is a real permission hint but informal, audience-qualified ("among progressives"), and limited to downloading/redistribution — it is not a recognised open licence (no CC/OGL/public-domain/copyleft) and gives no clear permission to extract, store, or adapt content for an internal library. With no formal site-wide terms and a web search turning up nothing more, this is too weak and ambiguous to call "open" yet not all-rights-reserved, so I judge it unknown. Caveat: this is site-wide triage; a specific guide could embed third-party content under different terms, and the permissive phrasing means a direct request to the org could plausibly yield reuse permission.
- CampaigningResource libraryUnknown
Library
Resource library
Campaign Lab ↗Licence: none foundevidence ↗Why this verdict?
A thorough look (homepage, the Library page, three individual resource pages, our-story, get-involved, privacy policy, and the /terms, /terms-of-use, /license, /copyright, /legal paths which all return HTTP 404) found no copyright notice, no Creative Commons badge/link, no terms-of-use, and no explicit reuse grant anywhere on the site, and web searches surfaced no licence terms either. The only reuse-adjacent signal is the informal Library motto "Take what you need. Share what you can.", which is an aspirational sentiment rather than a defined licence — it does not state whether content may be copied, stored, or adapted, nor under what conditions, so it is not enough to classify the site as open. Equally there is no all-rights-reserved statement to call it firmly restricted, so the conservative result is unknown. Caveats: (1) any future licence would likely be site-wide and would need confirming directly with Campaign Lab; (2) many Library items are embedded third-party content (Google Docs/Drive), so even a site licence would not cover that material; (3) a search snippet suggested some Library content sits behind a login/sign-up, which weighs against treating it as freely reusable.
- CampaigningToolsUnknown
Mapped
Tool for organisers and activists to locate their people by constituency and more
Common Knowledge ↗Licence: none found (site content); software codebase is GNU AGPL v3evidence ↗Why this verdict?
"Mapped" is a browser-based data-enrichment / campaign-mapping tool by Common Knowledge (a UK worker co-op), not a content/resource library, so there are no guides, policies, or toolkits to extract; the site's "content" is essentially the app UI and marketing copy. I checked the homepage footer, the parent org site (commonknowledge.coop), and likely licence pages (/terms, /license, /privacy all 404) and found no Creative Commons badge, terms-of-use, or content-reuse statement; only a Privacy Policy exists and it carries no IP/reuse terms. The one explicit licence is for the software codebase, which is open-sourced on GitHub under GNU AGPL v3 (confirmed in LICENSE.txt and stated on the successor site mapped.tools), but AGPL governs the code, not the website's text/visual content or any data. Caveat: open-source code does not equal an open-content licence, and the AGPL would also impose share-alike/network-copyleft obligations if the code itself were reused; for reusing site content specifically there is genuinely no signal, so this is conservatively unknown rather than open.
- 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 hello@relationshipsproject.org. 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.
- 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.
- 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 hello@relationshipsproject.org would resolve it.
- CampaigningPlaybooks/guides/toolkitsUnknown
Trainings for campaigners
Trainings for campaigners
Social Movement Technologies ↗Licence: none foundevidence ↗Why this verdict?
The live site (socialmovementtechnologies.org) blocks automated access, returning HTTP 403 on the homepage and every candidate path (/terms/, /terms-of-use/, /privacy-policy/, /free-trainings-resources/), and no Wayback snapshot was retrievable, so I could not directly read its footer or resource pages. Working through search-indexed content, the only first-party legal document I could confirm is a Privacy Policy that addresses personal data, cookies and Do-Not-Track but says nothing about copyright, IP, or content reuse; no dedicated terms-of-use, licence, copyright, or "website use" page surfaced, and I found no Creative Commons badge/link or any explicit "free to use/share/adapt" statement for SMT's own content. Because there is no open-reuse signal, reuse should NOT be assumed; however, I also could not view SMT's own footer to positively cite an "all rights reserved" notice, so restricted cannot be asserted with a source either. Caveats: this is a site-wide assessment only — SMT distributes some materials via The Commons Library (a CC-licensed third-party platform) and per-resource licences on the live site could differ; a manual browser check of the footer/resource pages is needed to settle open-vs-restricted.
- 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.