Is there anything we can do as a group about SCO ?

[Ted Gould]

--=-/9fLZyTPylG1TmQLXgmt
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, 2003-05-21 at 08:40, Vaughn Treude wrote:=20
> Another seldom-recognized threat is the movement to=20
> "license" software engineers.  Occupational licensing is always the first=
=20
> step to bringing a profession under government control (note that most=20
> dictatorships license journalists.)  I can imagine programs containing co=
de=20
> written by students, amateurs, and refuseniks such as myself becoming ill=
egal=20
> to distribute under the guise of "consumer protection."   And I do recall=
=20
> seeing an article on the Microsoft web site bemoaning the lack of standar=
ds=20
> for software professionals . . .

I would have to disagree with you here.  Licensing of software
developers will provide some quality in the industry.  And is rarely
about government control.  I would also argue that it would probably
help free software in a round about way.

Remember, that almost all 'engineers' are licensed through the state.=20
And, in some states it is actually illegal to call yourself and engineer
without a license.  Here is the organization for AZ:

http://www.btr.state.az.us/

To start off, I should say that I am officially an 'Engineer in
Training' and have the option to get licensed in a couple years - so
perhaps, I'm a bit bias.

Licensing of engineers provides alot of things to the public at large,
because in reality an engineer needs to have a level of trust with the
public.  You need to have faith that some hacker didn't build the bridge
your driving on or the building your in.  You want someone with
certifiable credentials certifying those projects.

But yet, the pacemaker that you get doesn't have any requirements on the
software developers.  Heck, the thing could run on WinCE and if it
failed, all the people working on it would be protected by the corporate
shell.  Licensed engineers don't have this luxury.  They are legally
responsible for projects they sign off on, and for protection of the
public.

Now, does this mean that all software production will be illegal without
a licensed software engineer?  Unlikely.  Just like it is not illegal to
build a bridge in your backyard without a licensed engineer.  I don't
know what your insurance company would think about it, but that's
different.  But what will likely happen is that 'critical' software
buyers (medial, defense, nuclear power plants, etc.) would make a
sign-off from a licensed software engineer a requirement.

Does this kill free software in those fields?  No, not really.  It
provides more of a market for companies like RedHat.  Remember that the
engineer building the bridge doesn't have to do all the work, he just
has to be aware of all of it and certify it.  The same would go for
RedHat hiring licensed engineers that will certify the packages in the
new 'RedHat medical edition'.

Lastly, another offshoot of licensure would be keeping more jobs in the
United States.  Because the licenses are managed by the states it is
nearly impossible for someone overseas to become a licensed engineer in
the states.

So, I guess I'm really for licensing of software developers.  I think
that it will hopefully add quality to an industry that is becoming more
critical to our everyday lives and is starting to affect public safety.

		--Ted

--=-/9fLZyTPylG1TmQLXgmt
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQA+zjtuLE335pRPGp0RAoJyAJ41LKsFI+xrjRvyEyv4ilAkjyrxlQCcD50p
fTTw5j+0eQ8Z47Vt4aua5wg=
=TSB5
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-/9fLZyTPylG1TmQLXgmt--