Last I checked, Android is still open source (as AOSP) and people can do whatever-the-f-they-want with the source code. Are we defining open differently?
I think we're defining "less" differently. You're interpreting "less open" to mean "not open at all," which is not what I said.
There's a long history of Google slowly making the experience worse if you want to take advantage of the things that make Android open.
For example, by moving features that were in the AOSP into their proprietary Play Services instead [1].
Or coming soon, preventing sideloading of unverified apps if you're using a Google build of Android [2].
In both cases, it's forcing you to accept tradeoffs between functionality and openness that you didn't have to accept before. You can still use AOSP, but it's a second class experience.
Core is open source but for a device to be "Android compatible" and access the Google Play Store and other Google services, it must meet specific requirements from Google's Android Compatibility Program. These additional proprietary components are what make the final product closed source.
Was "Android" the way you define it ever open? Isnt it similar to chromium vs chrome? chromium is the core, and chrome is the product built on top of it - which is what allows Comet, Atlas, Brave to be built on.
That's the same thing what GrapheneOS, /e/ OS and others are doing - building on top of AOSP.
> Yes. Initially all the core OS components were OSS.
Are you saying they "un-open sourced" things? Because that hasnt happened. Just beacuse a piece of code is open source doesnt mean additional services need to be open source as well.
vscode core is open source, but MS maintains closed-source stuff that builds on top of vscode. That doesnt mean vscode isnt open source anymore.
