E: apparently it needs to be said that I am not suggesting you switch to Linux on your phone today; just that development needs to accelerate. Please don't be one of the 34 people that replied to tell me Linux is not ready.
Android has always been a fairly open platform, especially if you were deliberate about getting it that way, but we've seen in recent months an extremely rapid devolution of the Android ecosystem:
- The closing of development of an increasing number of components in AOSP.
- Samsung, Xiaomi and OnePlus have removed the option of bootloader unlocking on all of their devices. I suspect Google is not far behind.
- Google implementing Play Integrity API and encouraging developers to implement it, which prevents apps from the Google Play Store from being downloaded without a system-wide OS-level account login. Notably the EU's own identity verification wallet requires this, in stark contrast to their own laws and policies, despite the protest of hundreds on Github.
- And finally, the mandatory implementation of developer verification across Android systems. Yes, if you're running a 3rd-party OS like GOS you won't be directly affected by this, but it will impact 99.9% of devices, and I foresee many open source developers just opting out of developing apps for Android entirely as a result. We've already seen SyncThing simply discontinue development for this reason, citing issues with Google Play Store. They've also repeatedly denied updates for NextCloud with no explanation, only restoring it after mass outcry. And we've already seen Google targeting any software intended to circumvent ads, labeling them in the system as "dangerous" and "untrusted". This will most certainly carry into their new "verification" system.
Google once competed with Apple for customers. But in a world where Google walks away from the biggest antitrust trial since 1998 with yet another slap on the wrist, competition is dead, and Google is taking notes from Apple about what they can legally get away with.
Android as we know it is dead. And/or will be dead very soon. We need an open replacement.
E2: thank you to everyone stopping by from Hacker News, Reddit, etc. to check out the threadiverse. I hope you'll stick around for a while. Check out https://phtn.app/ and the Voyager and Blorp apps for a nicer UI. Fuck Spez!
How exactly does Free, non-open-source software prevent that?
Because the license allows the closing of the code whenever a coder wants. BSD has that problem. It gives so much freedom that it can go against freedom itself. Microsoft took Kerberos (BSD), forked it and extended it. The MS fork gained ground against the BSD one and MS closed the source when its fork was the most used, pushing out the original BSD version.
I get where this argument is coming from, but I don't think there are meaningful differences in the success of gpl or other copyleft licenses, vs permissive ones (except maybe cases where someone was willing and able to enforce the gpl in court). Companies are no less capable of doing EEE with copyleft. There are also plenty of permissively licensed software projects that have gained a lot of popularity, just like some gpl ones have.
The difference in traction between Linux and BSD probably has more to do with the same kinds of forces that allowed Android to succeed and then crowd Windows phones out of the market.
My bad for no specifying I didn't use a very specific naming indeed. Normally Open Source it's used for source code that's not copylefted or copylefted software that does not defend user freedom (Although Open Source OSS does not say that, indeed GPL by the OSS definition is open source software). On the other hand Free software is commonly used for GPL like software (although most of the so called open source software could also be named free software). Also free software does not refer to "gratis" software. For a better explanation you can check this and this.
Anyways what I wanted to point out is that software that protects user freedoms and is copylefted (like GPL) protect users because the source code is protected from being closed if it is distributed.
On the other hand some open source software (open as open access), like ASOP, give open access without any protection for the user freedoms. For example the BSD-3-Clause.
I prefer to use the term Free Software instead of Open Software, because it points out that the whole meaning behind the licence is to maintain source code freedoms. On the other hand Open software seems to defend the fact that the source code is open but not its freedoms.
Both OSS Open source and FSF Free software definition refer to mostly the same set of licences, which in order to distinguish you would need to check the particular details like copyleft, etc.