I'm not blaming google; I'm just suggesting that Rubin's snarky twitter post about the "definition of open" is somewhat misleading.
Put simply, I'm just trying to point out the sad state of affairs.
Android is primarily run on Phones, but you can't actually use some of them as a Phone if you build AOSP and install it because some of the binaries required for the phone functionality can't be distributed.
That's my point. It's misleading to say "here's an open phone OS" -- when you can't actually use it on your phone, because the things that make your phone work as one aren't open and can't be redistributed.
An open platform doesn't do much good if you can't actually use it on hardware with full functionality.
As I said before, I'm just a disappointed and somewhat angry Android developer, somewhat. Google could have done a better job here and made life easier for me and other developers.
