But then what, no one is allowed to own a compiler or interpreter until they get a degree?
The software equivalent would be that you can't sign off on code for a safety critical system without proper credentials. Now that doesn't mean you can't write such code, just like the guy swinging the hammer and striking a nail doesn't need to be an engineer.
Here's how that situation is handled on the legal side in the US. Anyone is permitted to practice law for themselves, but to practice law on someone's behalf, you need to be admitted to the bar.
I'm not endorsing it, but I can imagine a situation where anyone can write code on their own, but to get paid to do it, you need a license (subject to ethics rules). Again, I'm not supporting the idea, but it could work that way.
Important caveat: companies must be represented by a licensed attorney. A non-attorney startup founder cannot represent his/her own company in court. This is technically legally compliant with "someone else" since the corporation is a distinct legal entity, but it means that if you can't afford a lawyer (and which of us working slobs can these days?) and someone sues your company you are SOL.
Courts are seeing a massive rise in pro se litigants over the last 15 years, entirely because legal services are stretching to costs that put them outside the reach of non-millionaires.
Law is a great example of the nightmare that software can become if we go overboard on regulation. There was once a time where becoming a self-taught lawyer was not all that different than becoming a self-taught programmer. You could learn just by "reading the law" and shadowing professionals, much like you can learn just by reading (and writing) code today. It was at least partially merit based and some of the best legal minds of the last generation came up this way.
Now, you have to sacrifice 6 years of your life and easily half a million dollars to be allowed to even try to sell legal services, and the market is so flooded with low-end graduates who are stuck in this desperate situation that many of them can't even sell their services anyway, due to the extreme competition in the lower rungs (driven by student desperation to find work to pay down that massive debt and the artificially constrained supply by the ABA's excessive licensing requirements).
I don't think it's a good idea to require licensing for most software engineers, but I think this specific concern is not actually a significant issue.
1) Quite simply, software is much easier to learn than medicine, so you have a larger supply of capable software engineers than doctors. If the market for their services is being artificially suppressed, they will gravitate to wherever their services can make money.
2) There is a black market for medical services. Ever heard of a back-alley abortion?
The black market for exploits is already very lucrative. Devs willing to take that money are probably doing so already.
> There is a black market for medical services. Ever heard of a back-alley abortion?
Back alley abortions exist mostly because of restrictions on legal abortions, not because doctors aren't allowed to practice without license.
http://news.thomasnet.com/imt/2013/07/15/is-a-professional-e...
This idea that all other engineers have a PE is rampant in the software field, but it's just not true.
Most software engineers don't provide services directly to the public either, but licensure would a necessary first step to regulating the field.
Or he can, as long as he only writes static HTML and not a line of javascript, or he can do that as long as she doesn't pay him even a nickel or a free quilt?
It makes sense to require some sort of accreditation for systems that must be failsafe against significant financial, legal, or physical harm. But it doesn't make sense to require it for the digital equivalent of a backyard shed.
And even safety-critical systems don't require the force of law.
I develop embedded software for safety-critical systems. There is no force of law governing that in the US, but there are industry-recognized service providers that will evaluate your design and provide a certificate affirming that it adheres to specific standards such as ISO13849 and IEC61508. No-one in this industry will buy an uncertified product, despite no law telling them they have to. There is no need to create a law that will have massive unintended consequences.
It's mind boggling to me that you'd even make this argument...taxes aren't even a good example. I can officially do my own taxes and I'm not an accountant. So would the aunt have to "unofficially" have her nephew write the code, then pretend to have written it herself and everything is fine? That's currently legal with taxes - I help my own family with them.
Furthermore, ask me how often I'm seen a company get hacked that had ISO 27001 certification from a security firm with more letters after their names than employees.