In response to the argument that, if cars were to be sold the way computers were, that
"... auto manufacturers could shrink wrap all new cars and prevent anyone from legally being able to resell them, change their own oil, or have any work done at any place other than an official dealership."
This is clearly a case of faulty parellelism.
It is always perfectly legal to sell software or licenses which you own.
If you choose to lease a car, obviously you can't sell it. So watch what license you get your car under.
As for "changing their own oil," this involves replacement of a component which wears out over time. There is no such parallel in the computer software industry - almost all software will work over time wihtout the need for additional purchases. The only other purchases necessary may be storage space, memory, or increased processor power for an increased usage demand. These are readily available on the commodity market.
Finally, you imply that the software industry prevents "[having] any work done at any place other than the offical dealership."
Clearly, this isn't the case.
If software breaks down, there are thousands of mom & pop computer shops that will attempt to fix your problem. You seem, however, to be hinting that with the source code, you could fix your own problems. Granted that may be nice, and it's certainly something that I personally like in the software I use, but the parallel in the auto-industry would be having the engineering blueprints for the car available so that you could redesign the entire thing. This is not the case in the current market, and I doubt it ever will be.
Please don't misinterpret this comment - I am a huge supporter and contributor to the open-source movement, however I think the only way the movement will advance is through logical and clearly thought-out arguments and discussions. I definately commend you for your efforts though - you certainly caused me to think, which other than being painful, is generally a good thing :-/