4 ms·
IANAL It looks like he was hired as a contractor to work on their internal systems (i.e. the spreadsheet) rather than licensing a product to them. If as is lik
by jsty 7y ago
IANAL
It looks like he was hired as a contractor to work on their internal systems (i.e. the spreadsheet) rather than licensing a product to them. If as is likely the bank owned the spreadsheet, he's purposefully modified it without permission to malfunction after a certain date - that's why it would be a criminal matter, he's been told "you can access these internal systems to incorporate functionality x", and has additionally gone in and planted malicious functionality.
When you license software that disables functionality without a current license, it's legal because you have no right to use that software without the license. If you own the copyright to some software and someone you'd hired to work on it goes and sneaks in a logic bomb to make themselves indispensable, I think you have every right to be pretty peeved.
- CPLX 7y ago> the bank owned the spreadsheet, he's purposefully modified it without permission to malfunction after a certain date - that's why it would be a criminal matter Indeed. That's an excellent point, if true.
- SkyBelow 7y ago> he's purposefully modified it without permission to malfunction after a certain date - that's why it would be a criminal matter It is more than that. He purposefully modified it to expire in a time frame and in a method other developers would fine unreasonable and did so for personal profits. Then he took advantage of that modification. Most the software I make has a problem in it when we reach the year 10,000AD. But we would all agree that is a reasonable issue that I shouldn't be found liable (it would be a massive achievement to even be remembered as a footnote come 10,000AD).