Let me add here some of the history about rnetclient and IRPF Livre, concerning legal and government matters. As already said, Oliva has been publishing IRPF Livre for a while. He decompiled that software when it was using GPL libraries, which would make it GPL software, even though SERPRO or Receita didn't distribute it on the same terms. That could be interpreted as a legal liability, but he has not found any problems since then. Here is what has happened instead. As Sergio also pointed out, Oliva has gone through the process of trying to get the software released, claiming that recent law for transparency meant the government needed to publish it. SERPRO, who is the developer of the software, claimed there was secrets in the software that would allow people's income to be leaked. That is a lie! As Oliva pointed out in his counter-claim, his own IRPF Livre would allow such a leak if that was true. And that would be a huge security breach in the whole process of tax paying/refund. Unfortunately, the judge decided against the publishing of the software. But Oliva stated that he has done the reverse engineering, publishes the software, and no action against him has been taken. When I was developing rnetclient, I found some concerning problems in its trust model (software trusts certificate that is shipped with itself, certificate has a weak password, easily found on the software, even software hashing checking can be easily circumvented, software is not distributed with any signature - not even over https). I thought that publishing that would put me into trouble. I gave a talk on a big event in Brasil (FISL, >5k people, 300 watched the talk live, video was published, SERPRO president was at FISL), and no action has been taken against me. Oliva and I even talked to SERPRO president at the time, he couldn't care less, or even seemed favorable to what we were doing. I have been shipping rnetclient since then, 2013. This year I even managed to have it updated at the same day that Receita has published its own software (they didn't do Betas this year). The fix came the next day. I have an intention to publish a version that should work for years to come, until the protocol breaks from what it has been for the last 5 years. And, in fact, it's still useful to submit corrections to previous years files. So, if you have to publish 2013 and 2014 again for any reason, 2015.1 can be used. And the software will still be useful for at least the next 5 years, when people might still want to resubmit their 2015 files. Unless Receita breaks the whole thing, as I mentioned, but hasn't done for at least the last 5 years. About my own process of reverse engineering: I did some decompiling and read some of the code. I wrote a very small Java class to override the certificate verification, allowing me to do some MITM. Most of the process after that involved me writing tests to simulate a server and a client, and see how the client and server responded. Reading the code just helped me get the basics on the encoding so I could write the tests. After that, I wrote the program from scratch. Even though it was not completely clean room, it's hard to conceive there was any copy of SERPRO's code. Their code is in Java, with its own APIs, I used C, with GNUTLS, BSD sockets, zlib, my own decoding of the file that came after I started writing the tests (so I didn't read any code related to that). Also, Brazilian law says: " Art. 6º Não constituem ofensa aos direitos do titular de programa de computador: [...] III - a ocorrência de semelhança de programa a outro, preexistente, quando se der por força das características funcionais de sua aplicação, da observância de preceitos normativos e técnicos, ou de limitação de forma alternativa para a sua expressão; " Which means that it's not a copyright infringement when a program is similar to a preexisting one because of its functional characteristics, or because it follows technical or normative references, or there is a limitation for other forms of expression. Hope that helps moving the discussion forward. I, at least, found it delightful to write this for posterity. Cascardo.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature