No thanks. Apart from creating unnecessary barriers to entry, such an oath would immediately be politicized and used to stifle certain views, speech, and work.

No thanks. Apart from creating unnecessary barriers to entry, such an oath would immediately be politicized and used to stifle certain views, speech, and work. More broadly, I also think licensing in general can be counter productive, constraining supply and imposing bureaucratic certifications where none are needed. How about we start with something we need more immediately - updated antitrust laws that are enforced against giant companies like Microsoft? Brad Smith is talking big about requiring an oath for engineers but neglects his own role. Before he was President, he was General Counsel for MS. He is still today the chief legal officer and chief compliance officer alongside his president title (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brad_Smith_(American_lawyer) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brad_Smith_(American_lawyer)). Let see him and Microsoft come clean on antitrust, privacy, theft of others’ innovation (like Slack) while holding a giant patent war chest, etc.