I think by "copyright" you really mean "intellectual property" (of which copyright is one part). Open source is really unrelated to IP. Open source has its own licenses and constraints just like proprietary software. Like I can make an open source H265 decoder but I could still get sued for violating MPAA patents.
But here's the key point: proprietary software is wealth extraction. Wealth extraction is what capitalism really is. Collective action, often volunteered, creates a free alternative for something that you previously had to pay for, thus bypassing that enclosure and wealth extraction. That's why it's anti-capitalist.
You might want to find a definition that allows you to converse with other people. It is generally not productive to assign your own personal meanings to words in common use.
> Open source is really unrelated to IP.
Why do you think open source takes the form of copyright licenses? Open source is a reaction against copyright, which puts the software back in the state you'd find it in if there were no copyright laws. It's not unrelated to IP; it is defined entirely by reference to IP law.
My definition of capitalism is the accepted one. The problem I find is that most people who defend capitalism don't know what it is. Most people will reach for some definition relating to markets or supply and demand. All of those things existed before capitalism and are unrelated to it.
Previously we had feudalism. Monarchs ruled, typically through the divine right of kings, which was really just military might. Monarchs would have one or more levels of vassals who owned land in exchange for providing troops, food and/or resources to their feudal lord of king. At the bottom were serfs who needed to eat. Lords owned the land . In exchange for use of the land, serfs would grow food and provide food (and possibly military service) to their lords.
In Marxist terms, the lords exploited the excess value of labor.
By the end of the fedual era, produce was often sold and the serf owed his or her lord a payment, which was basically taxation.
Capitalism is the exact same system except that instead of lords and kings we have capital owners. They fulfil the same function: exploiting and extracting the surplus value of labor. "Profit" is surplus labor value.
Yeah, no. That would fly in the face of feudalism, mercantilism, socialism and communism. All of those are economic systems based on who owns the means of production. If your definition of capitalism isn't coherent with all of those, then it's not a correct one.
> That would fly in the face of feudalism, mercantilism, socialism and communism. All of those are economic systems based on who owns the means of production.
That's definitional for communism, but mercantilism? I understand mercantilism to be a policy focused on ensuring that national imports of gold exceed national gold exports, and feudalism to be mostly distinguished by the inability to sell land.
(Alternatively, feudalism might be characterized by a very weak central state that has delegated the authority to rule (or that just never possessed such authority). But that's more of a view of the political structure than the economic structure.)
I think by "copyright" you really mean "intellectual property" (of which copyright is one part). Open source is really unrelated to IP. Open source has its own licenses and constraints just like proprietary software. Like I can make an open source H265 decoder but I could still get sued for violating MPAA patents.
But here's the key point: proprietary software is wealth extraction. Wealth extraction is what capitalism really is. Collective action, often volunteered, creates a free alternative for something that you previously had to pay for, thus bypassing that enclosure and wealth extraction. That's why it's anti-capitalist.