Palley

Building important things -- bridges, roads, sewers, airplanes, for e.g. -- all require professional training and licensure. In the US, buildings and bridges generally don't fall down. Don't at me with exceptions. Nothing is perfect.

If programmers want to build similarly important critical infrastructure they should welcome similarly important educational and licensure requirements.

But my building a ruby on rails website using my amateur skills and some stackexchange and dr. google to build a site that returns random emily dickinson quotes and cheese photos doesn't make me a coder that is a fiduciary.

ps -- that muneeb guy should read the foundation trilogy. there's some hubris and delusion at work here in many of our programmer priests. you don't know what you don't know. and it gets you eventually.

I hear you, but I think holding software companies liable for damages caused by their software malfunctioning would be a better start than licensing devs Seems today like big software companies are not really liable for the failure or hacking of their software

Good one. Who’s gonna give a license to a ‘software engineer’ with an idea affecting global community?

As far as i understand this concept exists so we can all share the benefit, the control over such ‘software’ is more democratic and so are the risks.

How do people who can't code engage in this so-called democracy? Color me extremely skeptical, sorry.

If this were about literacy and written word rather than coding, what would be different? In the past when literacy was rare would it have been appropriate to apply licensing requirements to writers?

&

Also, some writing DOES require a license. If you want to file a brief for someone in court you need a license.

It's the filing that matters there, not the writing itself, right?