Docs: Why is this guidance limited to open source?

[paulbatum]

Much of this guidance is applicable to library authors regardless of whether the library is open source.

---

Document Details

⚠ Do not edit this section. It is required for docs.microsoft.com ➟ GitHub issue linking.

• ID: e80fe2fd-cbdb-699e-0dbb-a0a310bd372c
• Version Independent ID: 266d08ae-344a-683b-11e2-143b704e21a8
• Content: Open-source library guidance
• Content Source: docs/standard/library-guidance/index.md
• Product: dotnet
• GitHub Login: @JamesNK
• Microsoft Alias: mairaw

[mairaw]

@JamesNK can you comment on this?

[JamesNK]

I tried to come up with a quick way to describe libraries that are released publicly and this guidance should be applied to, vs a C# libraries that are internal to an app and most of this guidance doesn't matter.

"Open source libraries" is the best descriptor I could think of to differentiate the two.

[paulbatum]

It makes sense, I just feel like most of this guidance is applicable to anything published to NuGet, regardless of whether its open source or not! There are a few exceptions (source linking, how to handle strong name key) but they seem relatively minor. Its great guidance and I'd like to make sure its as broadly discovered and internalized by the .NET community as possible. If you're not comfortable changing the wording around this and want to keep it limited to open source, then I think we can just close this issue.

[mairaw]

So, maybe something as "Public .NET libraries guidance"?

[terrajobst]

Quite frankly, I believe we try too hard. The term "Library guidance" seems sufficient to me. I'd argue this guidance equally applies to internal libraries; but of course it might not be worth it. But I think customers should decide this for themselves.

Any objections to the rename?