I am ambivalent about this, leaning towards negative.

I have some open questions, though this is more implementation than concept - what categories of software would need what licensing? Is there a delineation for platforms with more or less effective sandboxing, e.g., mobile vs desktop platforms? Do we need licensing for non-mission-critical software like game development (not a trivial question given multiplayer transmits and parses data)? Memory-safe versus memory-unsafe languages?

Now, I can think of some good situations that should maybe require formal licensing, e.g., cryptography, though how to delineate that could be tricky. Certainly I would want someone building a cryptographic vault or library to have very good knowledge of cryptography - I am not sure this is needed if you are effectively dispatching to a known good library, but it is still possible to build highly insecure protocols on top of it. Wondering if I would want a single large license, or some kind of specialty licenses for such cases, though.

My biggest gripe though, is that I feel most of the problems of software come from companies behaving irresponsibly - collecting too much data, rushing features through, pushing top-down control and schedules making it difficult for engineers to push back for needs and to build systems effectively. A lot of corporations pretty much give marching orders to their engineers. Maybe if software engineers were licensed, and there was personal liability against one's license to disobey, it would create a strong incentive to not implement such systems. I have my doubts this would get implemented in the USA though, as we have already unfortunately mostly stood against regulations like the GDPR. Maybe the EU would do this - but I am not sure if it is a better strategy, if that is the intent, versus focusing the state on attacking companies with malicious intent and sending them directly out of business.

I suppose I should add, I largely fear more and more regulation around software, especially at the level of "commercial vs. not" - one, much commercial software uses open source; two, I am extraordinarily wary that we may lose pretty much all digital freedom to increasingly authoritarian societies - I sort of expect such licensing requirements to keep pushing that along and breaking any possibility of making modern technology less bad, instead burdening the field such that only major corporations may effectively contribute, and cutting off all funding to independent developers. It's already grim in that respect to be sure. Licensure feels like it is on the path to whitewash intense restrictions on computation in the language of protection and security.

Many big technology companies have zero ethics or desire for it. I only have faith in smaller groups and independent developers, and I don't want to stifle them if they have some path to come back and compete.

Hell, at this point my main computer is Linux, with a mixture of open source and donation-driven (this could be considered commercial!) software. My desktop environment is made by someone in a bedroom in Poland and it's better than anything Apple or god forbid Microsoft can ship. I would prefer to not have some licensing body to come and make it illegal for me to use that desktop and send this developer money so he can pay his rent.