Sure a contract was signed, but as has been pointed out many times about Google's heavy-handed control over Android, it doesn't mean it was fair to all parties:
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/07/googles-iron-grip-on...
Given the recent judgements about Google's anticompetitive behavior in multiple other arenas, revisiting these licensing agreements seems justified.
> The article is basically saying "if you don't use Play store and Google apps you'll have to build them yourself".
The article says a lot more. A key point about the Open Handset Alliance, OHA (emphasis theirs):
"If a company does ever manage to fork AOSP, clone the Google apps, and create a viable competitor to Google's Android, it's going to have a hard time getting anyone to build a device for it. In an open market, it would be as easy as calling up an Android OEM and convincing them to switch, but Google is out to make life a little more difficult than that. ...
The OHA is a group of companies committed to Android—Google's Android—and members are contractually prohibited from building non-Google approved devices. That's right, joining the OHA requires a company to sign its life away and promise to not build a device that runs a competing Android fork."
If you read the article I linked and many of the criticisms in these comments (not to mention TFA) smartphone vendors need to cede a huge amount of control to Google to have a viable product. As such, the open source aspect of Android is just a very effective distraction from the anti-competitive practices that Google has been plying with it.
Legally or illegally? If you don't care about doing it legally, sure you can make a stub Google play service and fake the device integrity by extracting certificates from other devices.
If you care about the laws though you cannot really get rid of the play services.
What’s illegal about stubs + extracting certs?
If the certificates were used for copy protection, the DMCA might apply. If they weren’t part of the API, copyright might apply. Patent law doesn’t apply, and trade secrets don’t enjoy legal protection.
They could argue you’re in violation of their terms of service, but their remedy for that is to kick you off the services you’re actively avoiding.
Is there some other law I’m missing?
The stubs still need to use Google servers for FCM but without following their terms, is that okay? Probably a grey area at best.
Extracting the certificates used for protection is against the DMCA in the US and probably legal in the EU as part of the interoperability exceptions.
> Sure a contract was signed, but as has been pointed out many times about Google's heavy-handed control over Android, it doesn't mean it was fair to all parties:
The article is basically saying "if you don't use Play store and Google apps you'll have to build them yourself". I don't really understand - yes? You would have to. But you still got a load of stuff free. You only have to build apps on top. You get a working OS for free still, which is incredibly valuable.