That is what is commonly known as a "straw man". The legality and morality of EULA's is an entirely different matter, which AFAIK has not been brought up until now.

Using BSD instead of GPL would for example not do anything of the sort ("force" end users to give up their freedom), while still giving developers the freedom to license their code in any way they wish.

The argument I'm putting forth is that GPL is viral and limits the freedom of developers. You are arguing that all code by default is public domain, and GPL just enforces that (or am I wrong?). We are obviously have dramatically different views on life and liberty in general, and thus any further discussion is an exercise in futility.

If you don't write sourcecode (you don't have car) then you don't need the GPL and what you said is pontless. There is nothing wrong with it.

The problem with your analogy is that you define rules for material objects, for property. See the video I posted, I don't want to repeat that here again. You have to find an analogy that is on an ethical - not technical - level. Maybe that's why you confused things in my metaphor. I was not talking about slaves and cars, I was talking about how they act together, with emphasis on the act.

See what happens if you transfer rules in case they're not appropriate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBOQzSk14c

Exactly the analogy I was thinking about: when we buy cars, do we also request the car's engineering blueprints? no, we don't. Then why are we so adamant in requesting the source code of a program?

Trying to protect one's business is normal. It's a fundamental right.

It is one of many so-called 'fundamental' rights, and in pretty much all interesting cases, at least two such rights conflict. Protecting one's business is OK as long as it doesn't violate anyone else's rights; in this case however, it does.
Also since the car manufacturer now has an unfair advantage over an independent garage owner, the market mechanisms that would otherwise lead to repairs at commodity price won't work anymore, leading to a situation where a select handful profits at the expense of the common good.

Of course not. However, I believe that it is at least morally questionable to lock customers into your brand by preventing competitors from offering services for your product. You don't need the full stack of blueprints, but providing enough information so that someone else could perform repairs and servicing on your product should be the minimum.

No, it's not. However, making something and then artificially preventing others from providing services for it is.

If the Ford Motor Company (just an example) is the only competitor capable of repairing Ford cars, then that's a monopoly. If Ford locks you into buying service and repairs from authorized Ford dealers only, then your only choice would be to buy a different brand.
It's not a standalone monopoly, like if there were only one car brand period, and no other means of transportation available, but since buying a new car every time you are dissatisfied with the repairman is not feasible, it is still a local monopoly, with all the mechanisms this implies - customers cannot choose, consequently the market pressure goes down, which creates an imbalance up to the point where prices would become so unbearably high that people would in fact rather buy a new car than take it to that garage again, and at the same time, the monopolist can afford to deliver much lower quality, since there is no practical competition. Again, in the car example, the effects are somewhat alleviated because utterly bad service will hurt car sales, but they are still real.

It's in the same league as cellphone AC adaptors (using nonstandard connectors so you have to buy a 20$ one from the cellphone vendor instead of a 5$ generic one), printers (sold below production cost, just so you buy their insanely overpriced and completely incompatible ink cartridges), operating systems (apparently, it is currently practically impossible to buy a notebook PC without a windows licence) and a bunch of other crap.

Some of these have been outlawed in the EU recently, including cellphone adaptors (IIRC, these are now required to use a standard connector format), car electronics (specs for the diagnostics connector interface now have to be released so that anyone can at least read them out using off-the-shelf hardware), while others still flourish (ink cartridges, operating systems, etc.).

Not offering your products' design blueprints to your competitors is not unethical. It's part of the competition. What is unethical is to try to expand your market share or keep competitors out by bribe or extortion.

It's not. It's part of the competition.

Your definition of monopoly is a tautology, and therefore it is wrong. You are essentially saying that when one sells product X, he is the only one selling product X. Well, duh. That's not a monopoly.

But there are many car brands. If you don't like Ford, choose another one.

Here in Greece, we have the concept of specialized shops with exclusive access to the technology of the car maker. For example, I own a Seat Ibiza, and I can repair it in any Seat-specialized repair shops. Doesn't that happen in USA?

Good question. To what extend this logic goes? according to this logic, everything is a monopoly, and everyone should share his designs with everyone else.

And I already said that.
Additionally, I said that it might make sense to tread over your right to protect your business in order to improve public safety; In much the same way as the law forces you to wear a seatbelt, treading over your freedom of action, to reference another thread .

Since you haven't read the article:

The free market has a wonderful way of compensating for these kinds of things. If you make a car that only the dealer can fix at an expensive price, then nobody will buy them.

If there were only a single manufacturer of cars or they all conspired together, then it could be a problem. However, neither of those are true, so any legislation would be misguided and unnecessary.

I remember trying to use an OBD II diagnostic program on a laptop about ten years ago. It would work on Japanese imports, but not American or European cars due to taking advantage of some loophole in the OBD II spec.

This is similar to buying a Compaq desktop (at least many years ago). You couldn't buy a power supply (for instance) from anybody from except Compaq because it wouldn't fit. I had a 486 with another power supply setting on the table next to it because of this. Actually the computer I'm typing this in with is like that.

{"name":"604429","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/3\/f\/3f524f645671f27cc692e1e70dc1f1a5.jpg","w":624,"h":463,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/3\/f\/3f524f645671f27cc692e1e70dc1f1a5"}

The red circle surrounds the original piece of crap power supply.

The fan outside the case on the left is blowing on the video card. I need to shut it down and vacuum up all the dust it's collected on the carpet.

There weren't any on the shelf at the computer stores here, let alone a 500W model.

Getting back to software, one thing that I think is similarly unfair is that Blizzard has a complete monopoly on the lucrative World of Warcraft business. Maybe we need legislation to force Blizzard to make the WoW servers open source and available so that small WoW providers can compete without being at such a disadvantage.