> Misinterpreted in what way? That they would think we have an ability to > enforce the guidelines? We *are* trying to encourage certain behavior here. > If they read it and, our of abundant caution reach out to us, that's a fine > outcome. > What negative outcomes do you foresee?
That it is a legal requirement, as part of the license to use NumPy. The negative outcome is that someone reads the document and believes NumPy to not actually be open source software. > That's not to say that there isn't clearer language that could be drafted. > The NEP is still in Draft stage. But if you think it could be clearer, please > propose specific edits to the draft. Like with unclear documentation, it's > the person who finds the current docs insufficient/confusing/unclear that is > in the best position to recommend the language that would have helped them. > Collaboration helps. I disagree. The best person to write documentation is the person who actually understands the package. I already noted that I don't actually understand the actual situation with the trademark, for instance. I don't really understand why there is pushback for making NEP clearer. Also "like with unclear documentation", if someone says that documentation is unclear, you should take their word for it that it actually is, and improve it, rather than somehow trying to argue that they actually aren't confused. But as I noted, this is already off topic for the original discussion here, and since there's apparently no interest in improving the NEP wording, I'll drop it. Aaron Meurer _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
