Re: [lp-ca-on] Netfile Application Thoughts

[Allan Zhang]

On July 8, 2016 1:10:07 AM EDT, Greg Knittl <address@hidden> wrote:
>Hi Allan,
>
>There are lots of proprietary tax products already. I don't see any 
>point in creating another proprietary package.
>
>It looks like a lot of work to achieve and maintain CRA Certification. 
>The only way I can imagine this working sustainably is by crowd
>sourcing 
>it. Maybe there is a way to crowd source proprietary software but I 
>haven't encountered this before. In the long run the 4 freedoms should 
>be good for the CRA as well. It would eliminate security by obscurity
>if 
>that is happening under the covers.
>
>Re Charter: something feels wrong about having to use 3rd party, 
>proprietary software to NetFile. The Charter has been used in some 
>surprising ways and this might be one of them. disclaimer IANAL
>Greg

I did not say anything about making a proprietary software. You could still 
very well make an open source software, even if the source was not *always 
available* due to CRA restrictions. For example, Android source code is 
released but it is worked on behind closed doors. This may be necessary for the 
tax software to comply with CRA.

Whatever four freedoms a free software group mandates may not be in the best 
interest of the CRA, as I wrote below addressing modification.

Only proprietary tax software exists because nobody has made an open source one 
yet.


I do not know what you mean by crowd-source or its relevance here. Could you 
explain?

-Allan


>On 16-07-08 12:23 AM, Allan Zhang wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 05:47:57PM -0400, Greg Knittl wrote:
>>> Among other things, the CRA is putting us in a dilemma since we only
>
>>> get to
>>> see the NDA after applying, i.e. after deciding on our structure.
>It's
>>> not clear what liabilities
>>> the NDA would impose on SOBAC or us as individuals if information
>leeks
>>> out. You could be
>>> taking on liability for "employees" you don't really control.
>Likewise,
>>> if a bunch of us apply
>>> as proprietorships and there is a leak, it's not clear if the CRA
>would
>>> hold us individually or collectively responsible.
>>> It's not clear how the NDA will affect our ability to work on a
>paper
>>> filing program.
>>>
>>> I'm thinking it would be fair to try to ask the CRA for a copy of
>the
>>> NDA up front.
>>>
>>> As for where to direct Libre Planet Ontario energy, I see this as a
>>> non-zero sum game. My hope is that by investing some energy to move
>this
>>> forward, additional people will come on board to complete the
>project.
>>> It's early days, this could take years. But already from my selfish
>>> point of view, this collaboration has generated ideas for me to
>improve
>>> my paper filing tax program. It's an opportunity for Libre Planet
>>> Ontario to grow, especially to reach across Canada.
>>>
>>> As for software modifications, the CRA probably needs to be able to
>hold
>>> people to the numbers they submit. If you use free software and
>modify
>>> it that's even more deliberate on your part than just pumping
>numbers
>>> into a closed source program. I.e. you are more on the hook for your
>>> submission - if the CRA can prove you modified the software.
>>>
>http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/esrvc-srvce/tx/ndvdls/netfile-impotnet/crtfdsftwr/menu-eng.html#q1
>
>>>
>>> puts responsibilities on the user can only really fulfill with free
>>> software. These are fundamental, important, hard issues. It wouldn't
>>> surprise me, if there are some Charter of Rights issues (court
>cases)
>>> lurking here. There are easier issues to start with: the 20 return
>>> limit/computer doesn't make sense when the software is free and
>hardware
>>> is dirt cheap. I wonder if the CRA tests for virtual machines... We
>>> should also stick to our guns on the harder issues and keep chipping
>>> away at them.
>>>
>>> Greg
>>
>>
>> * What Charter of Rights issues would those be?
>>
>>
>>
>> * Regarding free-as-in-freedom and modification
>>
>> To match the same clean certification that other vendors have 
>> obtained, the CRA requires software to be reliable and *singular* . 
>> I.e. no derivatives.
>> Yes, you and I can tell folk to check checksums and that only the 
>> *official* version is certified. No warranty is offered with the GPL 
>> right? But the CRA is who ultimately processes the returns, and they 
>> have set their standards.
>>
>> Is the end goal not to make a *good* tax software that people will 
>> actually use? For this, I believe CRA certification is a must.
>> This means NDA and not strict adherence to free software principles.
>> What does LP Ontario feels about this? I am of the position that the 
>> difference is to be made with a great product that many people 
>> actually use. Not pushing free software ideals that put 
>> free-as-in-freedom ahead of getting-things-done.
>>
>> Addressing other points:
>> 20 return limit, well, to adhere to it, restrict it in your code and 
>> call it a day. Esp. with no-modification clause.
>> I highly doubt CRA cares whether you use a VM or not.
>>
>> -Allan
>>
>>