On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 11:12 AM, Michael E. Locasto <loca...@ucalgary.ca>wrote:
> Does that give rise to the likelihood of licensing developers? > Eventually? Probably. > > Do we cheer if a licensing exam or liability stipulations are based on > compliance with LangSec-like principles? > I certainly would - provided we could repeatedly and predictably demonstrate that following those principles had consistent, measurable (and desirable) results. > > 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 >
_______________________________________________ langsec-discuss mailing list langsec-discuss@mail.langsec.org https://mail.langsec.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/langsec-discuss
