The slow but steady march to the grave for the Android Open Source Project continues. Every few months Google hammers another big nail in the coffin of Android as an open source effort, and I’ve documented them all here on OSNews (nail, nail, nail, nail, nail), coming to the conclusion long ago that for all intents and purposes, Android is no longer an open source operating system.
The latest move, however, is just petty.
According to GrapheneOS on [Twitter], Google has apparently replaced public, instant code downloads for Pixel phone drivers with a manual request form. Instead of publishing code directly to open developer platforms where anyone can grab it, Google now requires developers to fill out a Google Form and wait for someone to send them a Google Drive link.
What used to take a couple of hours is now taking weeks.
↫ Hillary Keverenge at Android Authority
I’m perhaps misremembering, but I vaguely recall discussions decades ago about what, exactly, it meant to “make source code available”, as open source licenses state in a variety of words. Would mailing a paper print-out by classic post satisfy such requirements? Could you write the source code on a brick and throw it through the user’s window? Could you hire a church choir to sing it? These are all silly examples, but before everyone had internet access, this was a relevant question.
The widespread availability of the internet and software like git solved these issues, which makes it all the more petty that Google now requires an actual application process, waiting times, and Google Drive dumps just to get access to the source code for Pixel drivers. Google is clearly trying to kill whatever’s left of the Android Open Source Project’s rotting corpse, only barely technically complying with any license requirements only because they’re obligated to.
The Android team at Google must be a hoot at parties.
I’m willing to bet good money that the Android Team themselves dislike this move, upper management however would think its great
Upper management are looking at their bonuses, nothing else.
Regarding how the Chinese helped with the AI improvement (Deepseek, Kimi, …), they are now making their own AMD64 chips thank to a deal with VIA, they are working to avoid EUV lithography altogether, I’m wondering if they can up with something on the OS front as well.
There are already non-google android variants forked from AOSP used in china. The more closed the google stack becomes the more the chinese versions will diverge.
Is there any reason to buy a Pixel phone besides installing a custom ROM? I have a Pixel 8 and can vouch that the hardware is absolute dogshit and if not for GrapheneOS (or another degoogled ROM) I wouldn’t have ever considered getting a Pixel phone.
I have a 10 Pro and I love it. The camera is great, the phone is just the right size, it has a nice appearance (Though hard to tell how it feels since it’s in a case), the screen is sharp, vibrant and the high refresh rate is smooth. I had the 7 or 8 previously and that was already fast enough that I didn’t have any performance complaints. I mainly upgraded because TMo said they’d give me the 10 Pro for free if I upgraded my plan, and the upgraded plan ended up being cheaper than what I was already paying (While offering me more), so I ended up spending less money for service and got a much better phone for free in the bargain
I had a Pixel 8 Pro for two years, and it was the best phone hardware I’ve ever used. Solid feeling, fast, didn’t get hot, the screen was fantastic, no garbage malware like Samsung and Motorola force down your throat, and the camera was better than the iPhone 15 Pro I am using right now. Perhaps you ended up with a bad unit, or you just hate Google (I can sympathize) and consider it horrible by association?
Mine died at almost the two year mark, forcing me to switch back to the vastly inferior iPhone since I couldn’t afford a new phone, but when it was alive it was everything I could want in a phone, especially the ability to run GrapheneOS, /e/OS, and many other great alternative OSes.
Unopposed0108,
I also wish there are alternative phones where better supported. However you’re criticisms are too non-specific to make sense of them. I bought I used pixel 8 recently and my feeling is rather “meh”, neither good or bad. The hardware is kind of unremarkable,
I’ve seen benchmarks placing google pixels behind flagship phones. As you might have guessed though the fact that I bought a pixel 8 in 2026 says a lot about my expectations, haha. The pixel 8 non-pro’s display is a bit small, but that’s on me for buying this model. I’ve never owned a new flagship phone, I can’t justify paying that much. I suppose if I used mobile software that really stressed the hardware, the lower specs might bother me more. It’s fine for my needs.
Samsung is the only other one offering high quality, not likely to be spying on you for the CCP options. Personally I hate how Samsung takes money to preinstall and make certain apps unremovable (Meta’s Facebook and Instagram in the US, different by region). They can only be “disabled” while they also seem to get automatic side loaded updates outside of play store control.
Graphene crying about Google/Pixels is amusing… they propped Google dominance by going hard into Pixels (only supported devices for a while! and only after seeing huge middle finger from google they scrambled to find alternative/partnership) and then instead of promoting AOSP and alternatives they graciously promote using Google echosystem (play services and play store) with the excuse that “it’s all good, we are sandboxed” which is beyond dumb… listen – you still promote the crap instead of fighting it, what do you expect to happen?
Somehow, they have put themselves in the lion’s mouth. I hope the can find a solution to preserve the usability of Graphene on not-that-old hardware.
Honestly folks, the answer is a *serious* fork of AOSP, or investing time and energy in SailfishOS (and making it more open)
I’ve been looking at non-google open-source operating systems… and AOSP or SailfishOS are the only (currently) viable options.
Following the Redhat model of open source. Its available. Technically.
Adurbe,
Redhat popped into my head too.
Does anyone know if redhat acted on their threat to ban subscribers who were caught redistributing GPL code (even though it’s specifically allowed by the GPL)?
Brief refresher…
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/red-hats-betrayal-demise-centos-gpl-license-justin-thomas
Android stopped being an open-source operating system the moment Play Services was introduced, since most apps need it for API compatibility.
That said, if someone gets the source by filling out the Google Form, they can the publish the source on GitHub.
This is why open-source licenses don’t care much about how convenient access to the source code is, once it’s in the hands of one person, it can be published online.
Wait a minute… Pixels have open-source code for the drivers? Including the GPU and all?
kurkosdr,
Yep, android is certainly incomplete without google’s proprietary services. MicroG provides a FOSS alternative and they’ve done a good job but google DRM/gatkeeping creates a compatibility ceiling.
Grapheneos runs google’s proprietary code in a sandbox. While google’s code only knows about what’s in the sandbox, you still need a google account and it still phones home. GrapheneOS ONLY supports google’s services and not microG, which means a lot of applications on grapheneos are forced to run with google blobs. Worse yet, google refused to let me create a new google account under graphene, so I was forced to login to an existing account. I searched the web and this is a very common problem for new grapheneos users. I admit google are to blame for this and not Graphene, but regardless, it’s detrimental to privacy. On the plus side I did find that grapheneOS works well with google services. But for me the presence of a sandbox did not make me feel better about running google services. So I installed CalyxOS with microg. Naturally some applications are fussier about it, but running FOSS code is more inline with my philosophy than proprietary google services tracking me on grapheneos.
That’s true, although source code delays leave forks more vulnerable. Also, the loss of commit history makes things difficult even though GPL doesn’t require it.
My understanding is that these days the source code only supports the “cuttlefish” VM out of the box. Real hardware including pixels require more work either through reverse engineering or using preexisting binaries.
From the article…
If it’s helpful, at least according to the GPL the source code must be redistributed in “the preferred form […] for making modifications” which would mean that e.g. printouts of code are not compliant. The GPL may also require you to distribute e.g. interface definition files or build scripts if these are needed to compile the code. So not only does the code have to be provided in the preferred from for modifying it, but you also have to distribute the resources needed to modify (and compile) the code if these are not commonly available.
That said, the GPL is also very clear that you do not have to make the source code publicly available; you only need to make it available to people to whom you distribute binaries. And it is also GPL-compliant to make that source code etc. available by request instead of e.g. including the source code with the binaries. Under GPLv2 I think you also only have to honor those requests for three years, so you’re not in violation if you sold someone GPL software in 2002 and they ask for the source code tomorrow.
I’m not gonna defend Google on this since they’re clearly walking back how open Android is, but I can see keeping the source behind a request form since keeping it out in the open just invites a million LLMs to blow up the cost of hosting it.
Brainworm,
I think google’s motivation is less pure and that they are creating new barriers on purpose. As Thom points out, this continues a trend of making android less open.
3rd parties like grapheneos will go through whatever hoops google sets out since they don’t have a choice. But if the process takes weeks as they are claiming, that attacks one of graphene’s strengths: timely updates. The article also says google went out of their way to remove detailed commit information, which is useful for developers to follow the patches and backport them to their own branches. If it’s intentional, as I suspect it is, things will probably get worse rather than better.