In Texas, cities can decide to be wet or dry. In a "dry" city, a restaurant that serves alcohol must be a "private club." It's not so much a "private club" in that there are significant membership requirements, anyone can join if they're of age and there's no membership fee or ongoing responsibilities. I'm sure it's just another way for the city to tax the restaurant - how much does it cost to get a "private club" permit?
So if you're eating out and you want to have a beer, you must present a club membership card. Most restaurants have signed up with a company called Unicard. If you sign up at one Unicard restaurant...er..."private club" then you are automatically a member everywhere that takes Unicard. Years ago you actually got a separate membership card. Now it's associated with your driver's license number. When I was waiting tables the computer would refuse to let me input a drink order until I swiped a customer's Unicard (or driver's license). I'm sure that the computer was checking with the Unicard database to make sure that the person was actually a member. Was it tracking them? I have no idea. Probably so, in case the restaurant needed to look back and prove that a certain customer was in fact a member of the club when they bought that drink. Aside from the inherent lawsuit risks of serving alcohol, the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission is known for being ruthless and handing down VERY expensive fines to the restaurant and the waiter for any infraction.
A significant difference here is that Unicard is a private company, not a government entity. I'm sure they'll be quick to share their database if asked by a court, especially if it involves "terrists" or kiddie porn.
Disclaimer: IANAW (any more). I haven't waited tables for several years and I rarely drink when I'm out. Things may be different now.
The thing I like about open source is that everyone can make the software better. Why a company wouldn't want to produce source code, is beyond me. I think they fear that they will be viewed as incompetent when several mistakes are found in their code, or that sneaky randomizer function call rears its ugly head.
It's not that hard to understand, really. The Intoxilyzer folks are more concerned with making (more) money than they are with making the world a better place, writing better code or producing a better breathalyzer.
Most open-source software authors produce code because they LIKE it. Maybe they get warm fuzzies out of making the world better with their application, more likely they just like writing code. Only a very small percentage actually make money at writing open source code - and most of that income comes from either customized versions of their software or from selling related hardware and support services.
Most software companies (including companies such as this one that sell hardware with embedded custom soft/firmware) produce code to make money. If they release the code as open source, someone else can take it and produce a similar product that functions the same and costs less. Yes, you can put licensing restrictions in that prevent that, but those restrictions are very rarely enforced. Unless you patent your methods (a whole other can of worms) someone can take your methods, re-write the code differently and release it with no legal ramifications whatsoever.
Basically, open-sourcing your code allows others to capitalize on the time you spent in R&D. The open source movement considers this a good thing. Most commercial software companies consider it a bad thing. There's room for both in the world.
As I said, and as you quoted:
If you go down to the retail sheet music store and buy a piece of sheet music, you are legally not allowed to photocopy that sheet music any more than you're legally allowed to copy a CD or downloaded MP3 or any other book for that matter.
Note, I said "not...any more than...a CD or downloaded MP3." Yes, fair use applies to sheet music just as it applies to CDs and MP3s. Archive, quote it for educational purposes, sure. While I'm not familiar with the intimate details of the fair use doctrine, I've seen plenty of copyright violations that would certainly not be included - band directors photocopying entire arrangements from their buddies' libraries, choir directors purchasing one copy of a part and making 100 copies for their students, bands making (and selling) recordings of other people's music without obtaining the proper rights. I've played several professional engagements where I was handed photocopies of the original parts because the venue couldn't/wouldn't spend the money on the parts but instead copied them from somewhere else. On multiple occasions I've been handed a "listening CD" before a gig to help me learn the music. You could argue that last one as fair use because it's for educational purposes but it's questionable to say the least.
I'm aware that there are many cases where photocopies would be the only solution. Music goes out of print, sometimes you need a part RIGHT NOW because someone left it at home before the gig. If a student loses the third page of his part and the band director makes a copy of it from his friend's library then I have no moral problem with it but I don't think it's legal under fair use or otherwise. I don't completely agree with the laws as they currently are, but that's not what we're discussing here.
Since you started the pissing match about qualifications and credentials I suppose I'll participate:
I spent 5 years at North Texas (a school you should know if you're remotely involved in teaching music theory) as a jazz saxophone major, 4 years teaching at various schools around the North Texas area. In my current day job I interact with band directors on a daily basis. My wife recently left her job as an elementary music teacher in public school after 7 years. I've been playing professionally for over a decade. While I'm not an expert I have a pretty good clue of what I'm talking about.
The folks who publich sheet music for musicians to buy in music stores sell music.
Sheet music for musicians actually falls under very similar copyright laws. If you go down to the retail sheet music store and buy a piece of sheet music, you are legally not allowed to photocopy that sheet music any more than you're legally allowed to copy a CD or downloaded MP3 or any other book for that matter. If your copy of the media (usually paper, more recently downloaded PDF files) is destroyed or rendered useless then you're generally SOL and must purchase it again, just like with CDs or paid MP3s.
If you run a group, such as a school band or orchestra, you legally should buy a separate copy of the sheet music for each member of the group or make them share. While performance rights are generally not restricted you are not legally allowed to make a recording of your performance without securing permission from the publisher (which usually involves money changing hands).
Some publishers will make other concessions as part of their standard package. For example, when my wife taught elementary music she subscribed to a magazine that gave her new music for her students once a month. Part of the subscription was a license to copy the magazine as much as she wanted for her school, but not for anyone else (even other teachers in the same district). In this area at least, all of the major contests require that you provide the judges with original scores to the music (not photocopies) so that they can follow along. This provides reasonable assurance to the judges and the contest people that you've actually paid for the music like you were supposed to. If you have some other sort of agreement with the publisher then they require proof of that (my wife photocopied the license page out of the magazine).
As a general rule musicians realize the work and effort that goes into composing music and are happy to pay for it and help pad the composer's royalty check. Many band/orchestra directors ignore these laws and photocopy to their heart's content (especially when their students are prone to lost sheet music) just like many individuals freely copy MP3s. It's not uncommon even in a professional setting to be handed photocopies of music rather than the originals. Enforcement is VERY lax.
I'll leave others to debate the merits of the law, but those are the laws.
Anyone can make an omelet with eggs. The trick is to make one with none.