this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2025
289 points (98.7% liked)
Privacy
41401 readers
497 users here now
A place to discuss privacy and freedom in the digital world.
Privacy has become a very important issue in modern society, with companies and governments constantly abusing their power, more and more people are waking up to the importance of digital privacy.
In this community everyone is welcome to post links and discuss topics related to privacy.
Some Rules
- Posting a link to a website containing tracking isn't great, if contents of the website are behind a paywall maybe copy them into the post
- Don't promote proprietary software
- Try to keep things on topic
- If you have a question, please try searching for previous discussions, maybe it has already been answered
- Reposts are fine, but should have at least a couple of weeks in between so that the post can reach a new audience
- Be nice :)
Related communities
much thanks to @gary_host_laptop for the logo design :)
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I mean it can be both? Android has been awesome for many years precisely because it was open source. It's the reason we have had and continue to have so many custom ROMs. It was open source so it could be run by Samsung, Motorola, LG, etc. while Google collected all the data. It also meant that independent developers could create their own OSs without any of Google's BS in it. And that was fine, because us nerds are not even 1% of the market. But something seems to have changed because they're very suddenly clawing back control of the entire OS. Pretty much the beginning of the end for private mobile devices. This trend is likely to continue faster than the community can create workarounds.
The open source thing is largely a myth, though. AOSP is what's open source. The version of Android on Pixel phones and Nexus before them was forked from that and bundles a lot of closed source stuff, like Google Play Services, Gmail, and more. But it's close enough to AOSP that devs can target it and it should run on most/all Android forks.
So then Samsung and others take AOSP and they fork it and make their own OS that is based on Android. They are required per licensing to use Android branding if they want Play Store access. There are other rules, like Chrome and/or Google has to be on the main launcher page, Play Services has to be included... if they don't play by the rules, they can still fork Android, they just can't use the name Android... like Fire OS and Switch OS. (It's unclear if modern Switches use any Android code. Before they were released they were rumored to have forked Android. Switches absolutely do not run Android apps, but the OS borrows several cues from Android design language.)
You say it's a myth, then say it's not a myth. Which one is it? Is it open source or not?
AOSP and production versions of Android (what's on the Pixel) are not the same thing.
Yes, that's what I've been trying to tell you.
Wait, it being open source should have no effect on this? It could just as easily be closed source as long as Google offered licenses for manufacturers to use it.
Offering licenses means they could take back their permissions at any time.
OEMs want open source for the same reasons as everyone else.
OK, but Google essentially still has that power, despite the OS being "open-source".
That has nothing to do with Google, that has to do with the US government.
How does it have nothing to do with Google, if Google did it, even if it was by order of the US government? Regardless, this still clearly demonstrates that AOSP being open-source has no bearing on an OEM being able to use the full Android system or even the name "Android".
Contrast that with a fully open system like Linux, where this wouldn't be possible. No OEM would get banned from using Linux, even if the US government ordered it.
Because Google has zero control over it. You're REALLY reaching here...
We seem to be having a communication problem. I was originally addressing this specific statement:
Those OEMs could run Android and let Google collect all the data regardless of whether it were open-sourced or licensed, and the Huawei case demonstrated that "Android" is licensed. It's only AOSP minus Google services that is open-sourced. I don't understand what's so controversial about what I'm saying.
We are not having a communication problem. We have a failure to understand. If you want to challenge the entire definition of open source, that's not something that I'm going to entertain. You can take that up with OSI. Every other open source project is susceptible to the same legal shitfuckery.
These are not the same. And it's preposterous to suggest such a thing. It's like saying licensing movies from Amazon is the same as owning them. The implications are completely different.
Again, only as much as every other open source project is "licensed", as in it's susceptible to legal regulation.
It's either failure to understand or you're intentionally twisting my words. I'm not challenging the definition of open source and I'm not claiming open source and proprietary software is the same.
Let me restate and clarify what I'm saying:
I hope you understand my points now. If you still want to argue either of them, I think we've reached a dead end.
Yes you are. You are claiming that open source and "licensed" are the same thing, because the government can get involved and take away someone's right to open source.
GPS and GMS are not components of AOSP. They are proprietary Google apps.
It doesn't matter if it's useless or not, because it's not part of Android
Its obviously not useless because Huawei continued using using Android, minus GPS and GMS, as does Amazon.
That's not at all what I'm saying. Please point out where I said that open source and licensed (i.e., proprietary licensed) software are the same thing? First, I'm not saying anything about AOSP, which I recognize is fully open source and which I use myself. I'm talking about full Android, the trademarked, licensed product, which includes AOSP (open source) plus GPS and GMS (proprietary) components. We're talking about Android phones here, before you go "but but but".
From the link above:
"The "Android" name, the Android logo, the "Google Play" brand, and other Google trademarks, are property of Google LLC and not part of the assets available through the Android Open Source Project."
"Use of the "Google Play" name and the Google Play Store icon is allowed only in association with devices licensed to access Google Play. For a list of devices licensed to use Google Play, refer to Supported devices."
Second, a combination of open source and proprietary components is not fully open source, do you agree with that at least?
It very much does matter in the case of Android because AOSP without the proprietary components is limited to a market niche. Show me one really popular phone or phone brand which does not use Google's proprietary Play Store. Maybe there's some edge case that doesn't, I don't know, but it would be the exception that proves the rule.
Both had to either develop their own app store or rely on a 3rd-party app store, I don't know. But they're definitely not using Google's Play Store, and thus are limited to market niches like I mentioned above.
When you suggested that Android is licensed because the government restricted who could use it, that's what you said. I don't understand why this is confusing. Any other open source project is susceptible to the same fate, ergo they're the same thing. I already explained this.
AOSP is Android. This seems to be where you're getting confused.
That's not what I said. What I said was that the fact that Google blocked Huawei's ability to use Android's Google Services on their devices at the government's orders meant that the they had a mechanism that allowed them to do so. Namely, the proprietary license for the Google Services. Do you dispute this exact thing, not some twisted version of what I said? I don't understand why this is confusing either.
How so? Do you have any examples of an organization blocking someone from using a common open source license like GPL, MIT, or Apache License, with the possible exceptions of GPL license violations or export controls for things like cryptography, etc? The fact that Google didn't block Huawei from using AOSP most likely means that it was easier for them to ban Huawei through their proprietary license to Google Services than through the Apache License for AOSP.
This seems to be where you're getting confused too. I've already explained multiple times that what I mean by "Android" is the full suite (AOSP + GPS + GMS) that an OEM would need for a mass-market phone. AOSP is not enough for that. No OEM in their right mind would try to market a mass-market phone with pure AOSP and no Google Services.