Firstly, we would refer to them as proprietary or non-free binaries (perhaps even user-subjugating), not "closed source".

Second, you're conflating copyleft with free and permissive with open. This is not the case. The definitions of free software and open source are largely identical (copyleft/permissive being OK both under free and open definitions), however the open source movement rejects all ethical, moral and social arguments, in addition to not concerning itself with privacy rights, DRM, Tivoization and other threats to user freedom.