Yes, all the contractor (who inserted the code) would have to do is demonstrate the contract terms they agreed to were for time limited code. But given the cor

Yes, all the contractor (who inserted the code) would have to do is demonstrate the contract terms they agreed to were for time limited code. But given the correct thing to do in that case is to wait for the time limit to roll over and then sue them for violating the copyright (10-100k * per device?), doing it this way: * (from another thread) The time gate was hidden in a separate, known (and so not re-reviewed, for better or worse) driver, not the thing the contractor presumably work on? Also, that would open you to "they removed the contractor's code but the contractor's bricking code was still present", which would seem independently a Bad Thing * The article states a specific date was chosen (middle of a long weekend) which makes it seem malicious rather than "license enforcement", but again, if that's not just the result of pasting in the contract termination date + <reasonable math> (which they can point to if this is legit) in which case it's just questionable decision making. If the contractor responsible is talking publicly about what they did, then they shouldn't have a problem showing that they were paid to .. install? .. the software they were licensing, rather than writing the code as the job they were paid for while employed as a contracted engineer. I suspect this will at least improve their policies for code reviews (and their sourcing and source checks for large third party libraries).