No, copyleft is fairly neutral and just seeks to mitigate some of the damage done by copyright. Copyright is what has the serious political agenda, not copyleft.
That analogy doesn't make any sense because computer software is not produced in factories. Plus, the idea of copyleft is that software shouldn't have owners, period.
You didn't get the analogy, but I was being extremely terse, so I apologize.
Your computer is the factory. The binaries running on your computer are the means of production. You use your factory to do office work, for example writing documents, whatever. Copyleft is all about protecting the user that is running the binaries.
Now, if you control the source code to your computer, you control the binaries. This means that you control (own) the means of production, as far as a binary can be owned.
However, if you don't have the source code, I can sell you binaries but you have no mechanism to control your own means of production. Really, you haven't bought the software from me, you have bought a license to use it. It's as if you work in a factory, and you have to pay someone else for the privilege to use the machines in it.
Copyleft makes source code public among its recipients, meaning that control / ownership is shared, and you can still do what you want on your own machine.
Copyleft depends on copyright law to ensure public ownership; if all RMS wanted was a lack of ownership, as opposed to public ownership, he would promote public domain and BSD code.
Note that at no point here have I said that public ownership is bad - there are cases where it makes a lot of sense - but I do believe its not helpful to deny that the model is fundamentally socialist, as opposed to the EULA model which is fundamentally capitalist.
I don't believe the proprietary model is fundamentally capitalist. Copyright is a monopoly that depends on law to manipulate people into giving up ownership. Even if your analogy did hold up, everyone already DOES own their own computers. Proprietary licensed software tries to convince you to co-opt that ownership, by giving up some control of your computer. Your mistake is in assuming that by default, control of your computer does not belong to you. It does, but you give it up when you fall for the proprietary trap. The reason why copyleft is set up the way it is is because it's an attempt to prevent anyone from using the code in question to take advantage of copyright in that manner.
I get the analogy but I don't think it draws a reasonable comparison because it confuses the software with the license. The confusion is understandable because proprietary companies deliberately spread it. They want to blur the line between software and license so people have a harder time understanding their politics. But like you said, the software is not the product, the license is the product. Proprietary licenses aren't about restricting someone's ability to sell licenses, it's about keeping you from using their sales pitch. Copyleft is about making sure that no one can stifle anyone else's ability to use a certain sales pitch.
The structure of pure capitalism means the majority of people do not have a great deal of control. It's in the hands of the bourgeoisie, and so the people with capital are the people with control. If you have capital, you are a proprietor, and if you ship software for a living it's likely to be proprietary. Hence my initial association of capitalism and proprietary software with VCs.
I'm not assuming I don't control my computer (it's mine to burn), I'm assuming I don't control the specific binaries on my computer unless I have the source code to them.
Anyone with capital has SOME level of control, the point of capitalism is it allows the distribution of power to fluctuate. Compare to proprietary licensing where the developer has near complete control and the users have nothing and will likely never have anything. The software isn't the capital, the license is the capital. Of course you don't control the software when you deliberately pay for a license that literally says you don't control the software.
Yeah, it's more of an absolute split with proprietary software, except where vendors respond directly to customer needs and thus grant them indirect control.
But, the amount of capital required to produce a binary of OS X or Windows is beyond anything you or I or the vast majority of users will obtain in the forseeable future, compared to a Debian binary which we could do today.
I'm not sure what it is you're trying to say. I can produce a binary of OS X or Windows right now by ripping the iso and then hitting ctrl-C and crtl-V, but their license makes it illegal for me to hack it or to redistribute it. Are you talking about the cost to pay them for a source license? It's true that if they even sell one at all the cost is going to be astronomical. This isn't a real cost or an issue of ownership, it's a protectionist monopoly.
Yes, for a (full, four freedoms) source license. I'm equating being able to compile source code into binaries with owning the means of production, where "owning" means "controlling" (which is what it usually means anyway).
I don't think that is a reasonable distinction. Anyone who has a copy to the source code can pretty easily compile it. The "means of production" in the analogy you're drawing is the compiler, and the source code is the instructions on how to operate the compiler. The big social problem that people are trying to tackle isn't access to compilers, it's access to those instructions. We've gotten to the point where most programs are written in common languages, and most common languages have free (as in freedom) compilers, interpreters, runtimes, etc.
It's true that some people have definitely tried to write programs in their own languages with their own secret compilers just to make things even more difficult for potential copyright infringers, but thankfully that practice is not common because it has way more drawbacks than it does advantages.
Oh, I didn't mean "having a compiler" by "being able to compile source code into binaries". I meant having source code, having a compiler, and having a machine that will run the binaries you produce.
That's an interesting argument. The manufacturing comparison is complex; perhaps not bad, but a bit difficult (for me) to catch the nuances of. I'm certainly not sure how it matches with the original concepts of Marx (which is what I assume is being referenced by "means of production"). I'll have to chew on it a while.
I still wouldn't call your conceptualization of Copyleft "socialism," because that (at least currently) has a strong connotation of government-involvement nowadays. I'd probably call what you're describing communism.
Yeah, I probably should have said communism. I only said socialism because I thought it would be received as less of an insult.
Anyway, thanks for listening. You could also argue that the source code was the means of production (of binaries, and then of work), which might be more accurate. I do not know much about Marx or the history of communism, but the focus on social concerns in the GPL is similar.
