4 ms·

> same "profit reducing red tape" that civil engineers or similar face. I don't think we should ever head toward licensing/a credential body for software deve

> same "profit reducing red tape" that civil engineers or similar face. I don't think we should ever head toward licensing/a credential body for software development, but I do think now is a good time to have discussions around liability for defective products. A good start would be to stop allowing companies to disclaim all warranties of fitness for a particular purpose in their EULAs. The joke of Microsoft Copilot applies here where they have a big disclaimer that "Copilot is for entertainment purposes only" while advertising says otherwise. Not even the chrome EULA will agree that its fit for purpose as a web browser. The clause is a get out of jail free card that shifts all liability and risk to the end user.

datsci_est_2015 4mo ago
> I don't think we should ever head toward licensing/a credential body for software development, but I do think now is a good time to have discussions around liability for defective products. Liability is how a credential body would organically grow. It already exists in the security, compliance, and enterprise parts of the software world.
- inigyou 4mo ago
  That can be okay. The problems we're worried about come when it's government mandated. The EU Cyber Resilience Act puts heavy liability on vendors for software vulnerabilities that get exploited, including in open-source components they incorporate. OSS devs are shielded - liability is on the companies who incorporate OSS into commercial stuff.
  - datsci_est_2015 4mo ago
    In practice, what’s the difference between a government mandated license and a government that quickly rules in favor of parties who are damaged by companies that don’t use licensed software engineers? E.g. “Your software caused serious damages to our company / livelihood, and you best hope that it turns up in discovery that you used properly licensed software engineers who were following licensing best practices, otherwise this will be a slam dunk case.” Genuinely an interesting question to me. Seems like the latter is a better option, generally, but it does lock restorative justice behind a paywall - you have to be able to afford a lawyer.
    - inigyou 4mo ago
      They don't rule based on licensing. They rule based on damages. Your insurance might rule based on licensing.

datsci_est_2015 4mo ago

> I don't think we should ever head toward licensing/a credential body for software development, but I do think now is a good time to have discussions around liability for defective products. Liability is how a credential body would organically grow. It already exists in the security, compliance, and enterprise parts of the software world.

inigyou 4mo ago
That can be okay. The problems we're worried about come when it's government mandated. The EU Cyber Resilience Act puts heavy liability on vendors for software vulnerabilities that get exploited, including in open-source components they incorporate. OSS devs are shielded - liability is on the companies who incorporate OSS into commercial stuff.
- datsci_est_2015 4mo ago
  In practice, what’s the difference between a government mandated license and a government that quickly rules in favor of parties who are damaged by companies that don’t use licensed software engineers? E.g. “Your software caused serious damages to our company / livelihood, and you best hope that it turns up in discovery that you used properly licensed software engineers who were following licensing best practices, otherwise this will be a slam dunk case.” Genuinely an interesting question to me. Seems like the latter is a better option, generally, but it does lock restorative justice behind a paywall - you have to be able to afford a lawyer.
  - inigyou 4mo ago
    They don't rule based on licensing. They rule based on damages. Your insurance might rule based on licensing.