About
Why this exists.
The same software, given to organisations that would not otherwise buy it, on rules published in advance.
01 / The argument
Capability, not charity.
Schools and nonprofits do the same knowledge work companies do. They write policies, hand over roles, track commitments, answer the same question repeatedly and lose institutional memory when someone leaves. The difference is not the work. It is the budget line for tools that make the work lighter.
So the gap this closes is narrow and specific: price. Not expertise, not motivation, not capability. The organisations we are aiming at are usually better at operating under constraint than the companies paying full price. They are short of software budget, not of competence.
We are not here to rescue anyone. A school that gets a free licence is a customer we do not charge, and the relationship should read that way in both directions — including our obligation to keep the thing running.
02 / Theory of change
The chain, and where it is weakest.
Written out so it can be argued with. Each step is a claim, and the further down you go the less certain we are.
Input
Licences funded by the commercial business
Activity
Onboarding, templates, support for staff
Output
One searchable, cited record of what the org knows
Outcome
Less time re-finding information, more on the work
The weak link
Between output and outcome. Giving an organisation a good tool does not mean it gets used, and usage does not mean time saved. That is precisely why the measurement plan commits to reporting active workspaces and renewals rather than claiming hours saved. If the chain breaks, it breaks there, and we would rather find out than assume.
03 / The two sides
How this relates to the commercial business.
| Aspect | getirabu.com | irabu.org |
|---|---|---|
| What it is | The commercial platform business | The access programme |
| Who it serves | Companies of any size | Schools and registered nonprofits |
| The product | The Irabu platform | The same platform, same build |
| Price | Free to $19 per workspace per month, or custom | Nothing, on the Business tier |
| Funded by | Customers | The commercial business |
| Legal entity | Exists | In formation |
They are separate sites because they are separate promises. Mixing them would mean a school reading enterprise sales copy, and a company reading about eligibility criteria. Both would be worse off.
The conflict of interest in this arrangement is real and is set out in full on the transparency page.
04 / How we work
Five commitments.
- Say what is true today
- No future tense dressed as present tense. If something is planned, it is labelled planned. If a number does not exist, the space stays empty.
- Publish the rules before applying them
- Eligibility criteria are on the site, not in an internal document. A decision you cannot check against a written rule is not a fair process.
- No conditions on recipients
- No logo rights, no mandatory testimonial, no case study requirement. Access is not bought with publicity.
- Collect nothing we do not need
- No student data, no data on minors, no demographic data on the people our recipients serve. Nine fields on the application form, and we have argued about each one.
- Answer everyone
- Every application gets a written decision with a reason, including the declines, and a route to appeal it.
05 / Limits
Where this programme falls short.
English only
The interface is in English. That rules out a large share of the organisations that would benefit most, and it is the single biggest limit on reach.
Assumes connectivity
The platform needs a working internet connection and a device to use it on. Where those are the constraint, free software changes nothing.
One company deep
Capacity is tied to how the commercial business performs. Until the programme is funded independently, that dependency is real.
Talk to us.
Whether you would use this, fund it, or think it is wrongly designed.