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

[Derek Neighbors]

Ted Gould said:
> 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.

It depends on who does the licensing.  For example MCSE, CCNA, RHCE are
all bad in my book because they are promoted directly by a company that is
licensing only to get people with certs so that they can sell more
products.

A+ certification which is far more neutral or SAIR certification are much
less biased.  The problem I see today with licensing efforts is that they
are corporate driven.

This leaves it up to non-profits or the government to make a neutral
license.  Non-profits have to have money, likely their money would come
from the 'vendors', so while it would say 'neutral' in reality it would be
far from it (though better than direct product certification).

If the government does it we are all in trouble. :)

> Remember, that almost all 'engineers' are licensed through the state.
> 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/

The Architects, Lawyers, Doctors and others have similar such
acceptability tests.  I don't think independent licensing is a "bad" thing
in and of itself, but I don't think it guarantees better employees.  We
all have heard of horrid Architect, Lawyer and Doctor stories where their
license didnt prevent their destruction.

> 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.

Software is much different than building bridges in my opinion.  On thing
licensing does is prevent innovation.  I won't go into the full diatribe
on the reasoning, but a piece of paper doesnt make you better at
something.

> 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.

I am not sure why liability needs to be tied to licensing.  No one forces
people to sign horrible EULA's relieving software makers of all
responsibility.

> 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.

I could see more high risk software ventures wanting 'higher' forms of
credentials, but software in general is fairly non life threatening.

> 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'.

I suspect honestly those fields shun free software anyways as there is no
one to 'sue' if things go wrong.  However, if they have a licensed
engineer it seems they would, it might actually encourage free software
usage there.

> 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.

Corporations don't care about quality, they care about the bottom line. 
So I think this portion of the argument sounds good but holds little
weight.  For example I don't know one person that thinks "child labor"
(slaves) are an ethical thing, but most companies use "child labor"
anyways, because frankly it helps their bottom line.

> 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.

It might sound like I am adamantly against it, but in truth I think it
only moderately helps in small percentage of cases and ultimately hurts in
a small realm of others.  So really I guess I'm in the middle of the road.
 I think the public would speak to it.  That is I suspect a good deal of
software developers would be opposed to it and some for it and same with
corporations that do hiring of such individuals.

-Derek