Sometimes I would not mind if developing software would need a license, even if I'm speaking against myself ATM.
Lacking more objective standards, the most likely result of attempting to regulate at this stage seems to be regulators who talk a good talk -- such as the author of this article. Those people will not necessarily be the ones with either the best ideas currently available for building good software or the most useful experience and/or data to advance the state of the art in the future.
I sometimes work on software that really does have to behave properly because significant failures in production really could be very damaging. The idea that some of the careful, successful processes used on some of those projects might be required by regulation/legislation to give way to the kind of junk that a lot of consultants peddle is quite scary.
Only artificially so. Modern software development is mainly about re-inventing wheels from the 1970s with slightly different syntax and more bugs in. If we had settled on a language - doesn't matter what, Ada, ML, C, Lisp, FORTRAN - they're all Turing-complete after all - and gotten on with y'know actually building things, software engineering would be a mature discipline by now. Instead all the accumulated experience gets chucked out the window everytime fashion changes.
That doesn't mean they are going to be the only person at the company that is responsible, but they signed off on it and are responsible for it in the context you speak of.