@BowsacNoodle @TeaTootler >conceptually, but there's a difference between pure software and hardware specific software.
There is not. Just because software runs on a microcontroller that has the ability to command hardware that moves instead of a general purpose CPU to command hardware that shows an image etc, doesn't make it any different from pure software.

>think it's a good thing that the average guy can't FUBAR his car without special tuning chips and tools, particularly because their modifications can impact other people (they lose control of their car and I die).
It's already illegal to make lethal modifications to a car and people can quite easily "FUBAR" a car and make it dangerous to drive just fine without needing any special tuning chips and tools (just cut the brake lines for example).

Decently designed cars don't care what software modifications you make, as the brakes overpower the engine no matter what and the steering wheel uses rack and pinion and uses a simple hardware circuit for power steering and not software.

The proprietary software in cars often has lethal bugs in it (for example Toyota's proprietary ECU software was known for going into a state where an uncommanded full throttle would occur during a bitflip (i.e. a caused by a small ESD event) and the car would not stop accellerating unless you were to press the brake, completely release it and then press it hard (although the brakes overpower the engine, it appears that what was could happen is that people didn't know how much force full braking requires and therefore ended up riding the brakes for kilometres until the brakes were worn and then crashed)) and even come with backdoors now.

Clearly, it's a bad thing that it is difficult to check the software.

>I don't mind that restriction existing, especially because it's easy enough to bypass if you want to (tuning software and tools exist but it's not something every person can easily diy).
It is not easy to bypass in freedom, as tuning software tends to be proprietary.

>Spreadsheet software per your example is kind of silly, because you'll end up with the exact same thing you have today just labeled as "default normal use" and likely creates more work and issues when there's modifications outside of default normal use parameters.
The user must have the freedom they deserve with spreadsheet software like any other software - even if you think a modification is silly, not everyone will think the same.