1 / 10

Licensing and Software Engineers

Licensing and Software Engineers. Jacob Lloyd October 23, 2003. The License Dispute. In 1998, Texas licensed software engineers as professional engineers Engineers argued licensing would protect the public Computer scientists argued licensing was impossible. The License Dispute.

glenys
Télécharger la présentation

Licensing and Software Engineers

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Licensing and Software Engineers Jacob Lloyd October 23, 2003

  2. The License Dispute • In 1998, Texas licensed software engineers as professional engineers • Engineers argued licensing would protect the public • Computer scientists argued licensing was impossible

  3. The License Dispute • Licensing of software engineers is important today • Investigate pros and cons • Examine the case of Texas • Examine the case of Canada • Draw conclusions from available evidence (of course)

  4. Why Licensing? • Software is important • Lives can and have been lost to bad software • Licensing means a certain minimum competence with a body of knowledge • Licensing exists to protect public safety

  5. Why Not Licensing? • Body of knowledge largely does not exist • Software engineering is defined by research questions and disparate techniques • Products are concepts, not physical objects

  6. Why Not Licensing? (2) • Software engineering cannot be divorced from computer science (yet) • Information technology moves faster than engineering • Would a license valid in 1986 still be valid today?

  7. Case: Texas • Texas first to license software engineers in June 1998 • IEEE-CS and ACM contributed to efforts to create licensing structure; ACM withdrew • Software engineers who offer services to public must be licensed (consultants) • Those who work for companies do not

  8. Case: Canada • Canada had a turf war over licensing • MUN created software engineering program in computer science • APGEN sued over misuse of “engineer” • CCPE backed APGEN • AUCC, CIPS, CACS, ITAC backed MUN • CCPE now licenses software engineers, has trademarked “engineer”

  9. Conclusions • Licensing of software engineers as professional engineers is here in Texas and Canada • Licensing is coming elsewhere • Computing professionals must help construct the guidelines • If not, others will

  10. References • Allen, Fran, Paula Hawthorn, and Barbara Simons. “Viewpoint: Not Now, Not Like This.” Communications of the ACM Feb. 2000: 29. • Bagert, Donald J. “Texas Licensing of Software Engineers: All’s Quiet for Now.” Communications of the ACM Nov. 2002: 92-94. • Cupp, J. William. “Reviewing the Professionalization of Software Engineering: Can Small Colleges Remain Viable?” The Journal of Computing in Small Colleges 17.1 (2001): 132-146. • Kennedy, Ken and Moshe Y. Vardi. “A Rice University Perspective on Software Engineering Licensing.” Communications of the ACM Nov. 2002: 94-95. • Knight, John C. and Nancy G. Leveson. “Should Software Engineers Be Licensed?” Communications of the ACM Nov. 2002: 87-90. • McCalla, Gord. “Software Engineering Requires Individual Professionalism.” Communications of the ACM Nov. 2002: 98-101. • Myers, Brad, Jim Hollan, Isabel Cruz, Steve Bryson, Dick Bulterman, Tiziana Catarci, Wayne Citrin, Ephraim Glinert, Jonathan Grudin, and Yannis Ioannidis“Strategic Directions in Human-Computer Interaction.” ACM Computing Surveys 28 (1996): 794-809. • Parnas, David Lorge. “Licensing Software Engineers in Canada.” Communications of the ACM Nov. 2002: 96-98.

More Related