Does that give rise to the likelihood of licensing developers? Do we cheer if a licensing exam or liability stipulations are based on compliance with LangSec-like principles?
On 4/29/14, 8:37 AM, Darren Highfill wrote: > That would be a start. > > > On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 10:27 AM, <d...@geer.org> wrote: > >> >> | Mechanical Engineering ... Electrical Engineering ... Civil Engineering >> ... >> | these all are formal disciplines where one may obtain a license stating >> | that they know how to apply the principles of the domain of study. If >> you >> | screw up and something fails, it comes back to you in full legal >> regalia. >> | >> | Software "engineering" has never been such, and while I do recall >> studying >> | formulas, performing experiments, etc. back in school for things like >> | database or graphics performance, there was no formal study of the way >> code >> | is assembled. Anyone who could make a program that satisfied the >> criteria >> | of the assignment got credit. >> >> Would you go so far as to call for product liability? >> >> --dan >> >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > langsec-discuss mailing list > langsec-discuss@mail.langsec.org > https://mail.langsec.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/langsec-discuss > _______________________________________________ langsec-discuss mailing list langsec-discuss@mail.langsec.org https://mail.langsec.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/langsec-discuss
