Absolutely not. No. No again. A thousand times, no. The reason that doctors take an oath is because their practice directly affects people. A patient puts t

Absolutely not. No. No again. A thousand times, no. The reason that doctors take an oath is because their practice directly affects people. A patient puts their leg, their heart, their eyes right into the doctors hands. Any mistake, any "experiments"... this directly harms the patient in an objective way. A "do no harm" oath doesn't work with software. A software engineer writes a piece of code. This can be used for good, or evil, but by whose standard? Once the code is out there, the software developer cannot be held liable for its abuse, except perhaps in the limited circumstance that the software was designed FOR abuse. (ie: a zero day released without responsible disclosure). I would never take an oath that I wouldn't release "harmful software". First, because "harmful" today has become incredibly subjective. (Someone might say I'm being harmful in writing this!) Second, because it's difficult to tell how something will be used, and I don't have the time or energy to follow up with everyone using it to make sure they're using it to my liking. Last year, someone got a lot of attention for taking down their insignificant NodeJS is_even implementation when they discovered that ICE was using it. Can you imagine what would happen if Redis disappeared, because the authors discovered it was being used by some disagreeable activists? I'll tell you, very simply. People would continue to use it, having archived the source. The activists, ICE, you, me, everyone. Any such oath is useless posturing, and subject to the whims and pressures of what's in vogue today. Gives the appearance of doing good, without having to do any good.