Wow, it reminds me the difference between common morality and morality in politics.

Let's say you are the major of a city, and you have to choose whether or not to let a casino be built in the centre of the city. You know that letting it be done would have pros and cons: from one side, the economy of your city will be boosted; from the other side, game of chance will start spreading in your town, which will cause some of your beloved citizens to spend a big part of their money in gambles. The problem is: what's your effective responsibility for the negative effects if you decide this way?
Well, let's say that in this case, every 1000 people, 10 of them will frequent the casino; of these 10 people, 3 were already addicted to games of chance (other casinos from other cities, private clubs...), while the other 7 will start gambling only after its construction (Obviously a major can't know this from the beginning, it's just an example).
Those 7 people are obviously directly responsible for their own behaviour, because they consciously choose to frequent the casino and thus will pay any consequence that may result from this. But also your choice makes a big difference: if you don't allow the construction, those 7 people will most probably never start gambling. So, you have an indirect responsibility for these negative consequences.

I think it's quite the same here: cheating cheaters who cheat are directly responsible for cheating, but the programmer isn't completely innocent. He's indirectly his fault for all of the players that wouldn't have cheated without his program at all. (That's why I decided to ask the community first, when it was my time to do it)

By the way, don't cheat. I warned you.