Frettmaestro, I'm sure Brett didn't mean to be insulting. If you know the different parts of the US well, then, you know how those guys from Jersey can be. (Right Brett? )

j_shaw, not being a lawyer anywhere, much less knowledgeable about Venezuelan law, everything I say here is totally my opinion and not to be taken as legal advice. But here goes: Regardless of whether the procedures were encrypted or not, I think you overstepped the bounds by changing them without first establishing ownership or at least permission. If the work was done for you custom, then there's a good chance your company owns them, but if it was a commercial product, there's a good chance that you only had license to use, not change. And as Brett pointed out, this all comes down to what the paperwork says.

Just because someone doesn't encrypt their procedures doesn't mean you have the right to change them. It may be a stupid move on their part to leave them hanging out there so easy to read and altered, but it's not an excuse to say, "if you didn't want me to do it, you should have locked it". That's like saying if somebody leaves the door to their house unlocked, or a window open, then it's okay to enter and take anything you want. Wrong!

And nobody should be under the misperception that using SQL Server's WITH ENCRYPTION is a guaranteed secure lock. I've heard that it has been cracked. It's still a good idea, but not foolproof.

(P.S. Brett, thanks for the referral!)