And just like existing drive by wire vehicles, I don't own that software either.

Tesla is not prohibiting ridesharing. They are requiring the vehicle be in their ridesharing pool if you use their autonomous driving software.

Again, you own the car, not the software. Don't like the license, don't buy the car. Others will.

> Again, you own the car

and I should be able to use it as I see fit.

Then you will have to wait until somebody makes a product that suits your needs. Nobody forces you to buy a car where the autopilot cannot be used for commercial purposes.

I'm sorry that your desires are not congruent with contract law and therefore reality.

Sounds like a good reason to look at changing contract law. I'm wondering what kind of precedent there has been in purchasing products but being forced to agree to a license to actually use the product. My uneducated perspective is that this hasn't been an area of concern until general-purpose computers appeared on the scene.

Edit: It's worth clarifying my opinion. I'm totally alright with software "manufacturers" leasing software to end-users (or, in the case of Tesla, leasing the software inside their rolling computers to drivers). What I take issue with is the notion that there is a "sale" when a license is involved. It's a lease, and I'd like to see the force of law involved in reflecting that fact in the marketplace. Maybe it's splitting hairs, but I think consumers need to be clearly told that they do not own virtually anything that they've purchased that contains a general-purpose computer, and that they should not expect the benefits of ownership (ability to modify, to continue using even when the "manufacturer" has decided to no longer "support" the product, ability to resell, etc) in such a transaction.