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.
17 of 83 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?
A site-wide footer block titled "You can reuse this content!" with a Creative Commons logo appears on the homepage, the About/Privacy pages, and every resource guide I sampled (organising/campaign, wellbeing/action). It states verbatim: "All our work is available under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International Licence, unless otherwise noted. Just make sure to give attribution to Activist Handbook and read our licence for the details." The CC link resolves to creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/, which grants Share+Adapt rights under attribution, non-commercial, and share-alike conditions — clearly an open reuse licence, so we may extract and store the content subject to those terms. Caveats: the licence is "unless otherwise noted," so per-item checks are prudent; guides also curate third-party "Copyright resources" (e.g., Extinction Rebellion material) that are NOT covered by Activist Handbook's licence — only AH's own content is. The dedicated /license, /terms and /copyright paths return 404; the authoritative notice lives only in the footer. Triage, not legal advice.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- CampaigningResource libraryOpen
The Commons Social Change Library
The Commons Social Change Library
Commons Library ↗Licence: Creative Commons (per-resource; CC BY 4.0 and CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 observed)evidence ↗Why this verdict?
The Commons Social Change Library applies Creative Commons licences on a per-resource basis, displayed in a licensing box at the foot of each article. I confirmed real CC badges on three distinct pages: the source start-here page is CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 (links creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0), while the campaign-strategy and organising start-here pages are CC BY 4.0 (creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0). The "Website Use" terms page corroborates this, stating "Many resources in the Commons use Creative Commons licenses which require you to only use them for noncommercial purposes and ensure attribution," with licence details shown per item. Caveats: licences vary per resource (no single site-wide grant), so each item must be checked individually — some carry NonCommercial (NC) and NoDerivs (ND) terms that permit verbatim storage with attribution but forbid adaptation/commercial use; the specific source page (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) is NC+ND. Embedded third-party works may carry their original authors' separate licences. This is triage, not legal advice.
- 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?
Beautiful Trouble's site-wide footer states: "Beautiful Trouble by Beautiful Trouble, various authors is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License," with a CC badge linking to creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/. I confirmed this identical notice on the homepage, the About page, the Toolbox listing, and an individual tool page, and it is independently corroborated by Creative Commons' own blog post about the project. CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 is an open reuse licence that explicitly permits copying, storing and adapting the content, so extracting + storing for an internal (non-commercial) library is permitted, subject to attribution, non-commercial use, and share-alike. Caveats: the licence is asserted site-wide rather than per-resource, so any embedded third-party media may carry separate rights; and the NonCommercial term would restrict any commercial redistribution downstream.
- 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?
Security-in-a-Box (a project of Front Line Defenders) carries a site-wide footer notice reading "This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International," and the badge links to the canonical https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/. I confirmed the same notice appears consistently on the homepage, the about page, an actual resource/guide page (phones-and-computers/malware), and the disclaimer page, indicating it applies to the content itself rather than just site chrome. CC BY-SA 4.0 permits extracting, storing, and adapting the material, so reuse is allowed provided you give attribution and license any derivatives under the same terms (ShareAlike). Caveat: the licence covers Security-in-a-Box's own content site-wide; any embedded third-party material (e.g., linked tools or quoted sources) may carry separate terms and was not individually verified.
- 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.