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.
3 of 83 sources (filtered · clear)
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.