software licensing liability
Who is liable if software causes intentional errors when used in a pirated/unlicensed fashion?
<p>In this Academia <a href="https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/79603/lab-colleague-uses-cracked-software-should-i-report-it">question</a> comments reads :</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>cracked software has hard-to-detect anti-features bug (example cracked version of a engineering software may use in computations slight less material resistance, so that buildings created with it have a greater cost, or just more material resistance so that buildings you create with it just implodes because computations are wrong</p>
</blockquote>

<p>My question is: If a building collapses and the root cause is an intentional math error by unlicensed software can the software maker be charged with something?</p>

<p>I'm also interested if the builder could use this as a defense. </p>

<p>I think this is a lot like this question <a href="https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/966/liability-for-poisoning-food-one-expects-to-be-stolen">Liability for poisoning food one expects to be stolen</a> because you are causing harm to someone/something when they are using your things without permission. </p>

<p>That question says that if you expect someone to do something with something that you have purposely made wrong then you are legally responsible for the effects.</p>

<p>Contrary to what is said in one of the comments, including a disclaimer or a clause in the EULA to the effect that "this program will crash buildings if used unlicensed" will not help in defending its author; more likely, it will contribute to establish their culpability. If, however, the programmer does include such functionality (the program producing wrong results unless properly licensed) but keeps that to themselves, then there's no realistic way in which they could be held liable, since they could always argue, plausibly, that the errors resulted from the program being used in an adulterated form (which necessarily results from using a cracked version). That is, the author would argue that the cracked version of the program is not their program anymore.</p>
