IMO, if you want to write code for anything mission critical you should need some kind of state certification, especially when you are writing code for stuff that is used by govt., hospitals, finance etc.
Not certification, licensure. That can and will be taken away if you violate the code of ethics. Which in this case means the code of conduct dictated to you by your industry instead of whatever you find ethical.
Like a license to be a doctor, lawyer, or civil engineer.
There’s - perhaps rightfully, but certainly predictably - a lot of software engineers in this thread moaning about how evil management makes poor engineers cut corners. Great, licensure addresses that. You don’t cut corners if doing so and getting caught means you never get to work in your field again. Any threat management can bring to the table is not as bad as that. And management is far less likely to even try if they can’t just replace you with a less scrupulous engineer (and there are many, many unscrupulous engineers) because there aren’t any because they’re all subject to the same code of ethics. Licensure gives engineers leverage.
I think that could cause a huge shift away from contributing to or being the maintainer of open source software. It would be too risky if those standards were applied and they couldn't use the standard "as is, no warranties" disclaimers.
Actually, no it wouldn't, as the licensire would likely be tied with providing the service on a paid basis to others. You could write or maintain any codebase you want. Once you start consuming it for an employer though, the licensure kicks in.
Paid/subsidized maintainers may be a different story though. But there absolutely should be some level of teeth and stake wieldable by a professional SWE to resist pushes to "just do the unethical/dangerous thing" by management.
I might have misunderstood. I took it to mean that engineers would be responsible for all code they write - the same as another engineer may be liable for any bridge they build - which would mean the common "as is", "no warranty", "not fit for any purpose" cute clauses common to OSS would no longer apply as this is clearly skirting around the fact that you made a tool to do a specific thing, and harming your computer isn't the intended outcome.
You can already enforce responsibility via contract but sure, some kind of licensing board that can revoke a license so you can no longer practice as a SWE would help with pushback against client/employer pressure. In a global market though it may be difficult to present this as a positive compared to overseas resources once they get fed up with it. It would probably need either regulation, or the private equivalent - insurance companies finding a real, quantifiable risk to apply to premiums.
Trouble is, the bridge built by any licensed engineer stands in its location, and can't be moved or duplicated. Software however is routinely duplicated, and copied to places that might not be suitable for ite original purpose.
I’d be ok with this so long as 1) there are rules about what constitutes properly built software and 2) there are protections for engineers who adhere to these rules
