Sure, I love that too; friendlier tone and titles definitely help.

My main concerns, that @seanherron is already addressing very well as it's written, are:

* that the public domain status and unrestricted use of the data be very clear,
* that the API adds zero additional usage restrictions on top of that,
* and that any helpful reminding the page wants to do about best practices around implied endorsement and misrepresentation be clearly separate from discussion of *terms*

This PR doesn't mention anything about endorsement or misrepresentation, so the third one is moot.

But if you do include those, then in my mind that third one is hard to satisfy without either having the terms on a separate page, or dedicating design time to UX that clearly separates them. Even labeling best practices about misrepresentation/endorsement as "Rules of the Road" wouldn't be appropriate, because they aren't rules. Twitter does a great job at making their terms friendly, but they don't have the same obligation to put aside potential levers for abuse.

When I say abuse, I mean: if someone makes a highly critical `FDALies.com` website and part of it is populated it with data taken live from the FDA API -- the FDA shouldn't have their API terms as leverage over something they could argue is misrepresenting them or their data, or that the domain might be confusing and imply endorsement. The API exists only to be used, and these terms exist only to describe what API-specific limitations and disclaimers exist.

I don't mean to make any strawmen, and I could certainly see all kinds of proposals that address this concern. But the easiest way to deal with it is simply not mentioning best practices that are about discouraging subjective uses. That certainly doesn't prevent the page from saying lots of inspiring, positive, encouraging things, linking to examples the agency thinks are great uses, or really anything nice. :)