Re: [lp-ca-on] CRA rejects NETFILE developer application

[Stephen Paul Weber]

Well, the point is that access to the netfile servers must be guarded. Only 
applications that have been vetted by the CRA are given credentials. Giving out 
your credentials to others so that they can build modified versions of your 
software that communicate with the netfile servers is exactly what they *do 
not* want.

‎However, this is not a new problem nor is it a software freedom problem.  
‎It's just a bit of a pragmatic issue that any derivative work would need to 
apply for separate certification/credentials in order to be useful (assuming 
paper filing is not an option).

Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.


  Original Message  
From: Marc Lijour
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2016 11:33
To: address@hidden
Subject: Re: [lp-ca-on] CRA rejects NETFILE developer application

I'm not sure by what the response intends by “free of right”. Assuming the 
licensing you propose is GPL, there is no such thing as “free of right”. They 
should say right to freedom...

Also, IANAL but there is a difference between trademark law and copyright law. 

Fine, we may not be able to use the trademark in some official distribution, 
but the code (without the trademark) might still be able to exist somewhere.
Would dual licensing solve this issue? One distribution under the GPL, and 
another (snapshot with a specific version number) submitted to NETFILE to deal 
with trademarks?

Would the code be assigned to the FSF?



On 16-07-28 11:40 AM, Greg Knittl wrote:
First of all, I appreciate that the CRA is being somewhat upfront and providing 
some specifics, at least more than other organizations I've dealt with, 
although not probably enough for a full legal analysis since we don't even have 
the full NETFILE agreement yet.

I think we are getting into the legal/political realm here. 

Legally, perhaps some of the legal minds involved in the Geocoder lawsuit: 
CIPPIC https://cippic.ca/ could provide some guidance. I suspect there are 
quite a few legal issues to explore here: whether it is legitimate to require 
certification, whether it's legitimate to force the whole tax calculation 
engine to be closed source instead of just the filing interface, potential 
Charter challenges etc. 

Politically, start thinking about how to articulate this issue. The biggest 
practical argument I can think of is that having fully open APIs and open 
software is the best way to ensure security both for the CRA and for filers. 
Forcing the use of closed source is putting filers and the CRA at risk. It's a 
big issue but it's a subtle one just like all the software freedom issues. It 
fits very well with Software Freedom Day. Maybe instead of just randomly 
contacting people on the street, there's a specific demonstration in front of a 
tax office or in front of an MP's office that might get some media coverage. 

thoughts?
Greg
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject:        RE: Placeholder application to meet July 15th deadline?
Date:   Thu, 28 Jul 2016 14:27:08 +0000
From:   NETFILE Certification Support / Soutien homologation IMPÔTNET (CRA/ARC) 
<address@hidden>
To:     'Greg Knittl' <address@hidden>
CC:     NETFILE Certification Support / Soutien homologation IMPÔTNET (CRA/ARC) 
<address@hidden>

Hello Mr. Knittl,

Thank you for submitting an Application for NETFILE.

We have reviewed your application and the link you submitted related to the 
philosophy of Libre Planet Ontario.

Legally it is not possible for such a “free of right” product to be Certified 
by CRA. The certification process is a “legalized” concept covered by legal 
documents such as the 2016 NETFILE Certification Agreement. Legal documents 
have to be endorsed by both parties.
Also the 2016 NETFILE Certification Agreement has to be signed to be able to 
use the NETFILE Registered trade mark. Paragraph 11.1 states that the licence 
is:

11.0 License to Use NETFILE Official Mark


11.1 If a Software Product meets all the requirements of NETFILE certification 
testing and provided that the Software Developer complies with all requirements 
as specified for post-certification as outlined in the Certification Guide, 
then the Software Developer will be granted a non exclusive, personal, non 
transferable, non sub-licensable, license to use the NETFILE Official Mark in 
respect of the Software Product Version having the CRA Software Product 
Identifier that has passed certification testing and only as directed by CRA. 
Software Developer may also represent that the Software Product has passed CRA 
NETFILE certification testing and the Software Product is therefore compatible 
with the CRA’s NETFILE Electronic Filing Service.

The article 11.1 contradicts the “Free of right” (essential freedoms 0-1-2-3) 
software product philosophy. A CRA Certified software cannot be modified from 
its original certified version, reprogrammed, nor can it be redistributed to 
any other parties than the one licensed for.

For all those reasons your application for NETFILE has been rejected.

Hoping this is satisfactory,

If you have any other questions about the application process, do not hesitate 
to contact us.

Thank you,


Electronic Filing Services Section / Section des services de transmissions 
électroniques
Electronic Services Division / Division des services électroniques
750 Heron Rd, 7th floor / 750, chemin Heron, 7e étage
Ottawa, ON K1A 0L5
mailto:address@hidden


From: Greg Knittl [mailto:address@hidden
Sent: July 14, 2016 7:30 AM
To: NETFILE Certification Support / Soutien homologation IMPÔTNET (CRA/ARC)
Subject: Fwd: Placeholder application to meet July 15th deadline?

Hi,

Please find attached a placeholder Software Developer's
Application for NetFile with the box in Section 8 unchecked to meet the July 
15th application deadline.

thanks
Greg

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject:

Placeholder application to meet July 15th deadline?

Date:

Tue, 12 Jul 2016 23:49:02 -0400

From:

Greg Knittl <address@hidden><mailto:address@hidden>

To:

NETFILE Certification Support / Soutien homologation IMPÔTNET (CRA/ARC) 
<address@hidden><mailto:address@hidden>, libreplanet Canada Ontario 
<address@hidden><mailto:address@hidden>



Hi,



Would it be okay if I submitted a placeholder Software Developer's

Application for NetFile without checking the box in Section 8 while you

decide if checking that box will bind me in any way if it turns out I

can't agree to the terms of the NETFILE Certification Agreement? I'd

like to meet the July 15th deadline somehow since it seems to be

critical to the whole 2016 Certification Cycle.



thanks,

Greg







-- 
Marc Lijour 
Director | Directeur 
Savoir-faire Linux, Torontohttp://sflx.ca/toronto
Email:address@hidden 
Ring:3e447c5477143b7c881c0730c152f8f0678501e5http://ring.cx
Skype:marclijour 
Tel:+1 647 556 2598Cel: +1 647 384 7746
About us:http://sflx.ca/BrochureEnCA