GrapheneOS is based on the Android Open Source Project and retains near perfect android app compatibility. It cannot call itself android for legal reasons, but the legal definition does not affect its app compatibility.

Tools such as play integrity are illegal. Using anticompetitive and monopolistic tools is not the right of application developers.

▲

Arainach an hour ago | parent [-]

The legal definition matters a lot if someone is trying to argue that VW advertising Android features is supposed to include GrapheneOS

> Using anticompetitive and monopolistic tools is not the right of application developers.

Please talk to an actual lawyer before making legal claims, because to be blunt it's very clear you don't know what many of those terms mean in a legal context. VW is not a "monopoly". They have no obligation to allow the use of their software on platforms they don't want.

▲

HybridStatAnim8 19 minutes ago | parent [-]

The legal definition of the OS does not matter at all when considering the difference between failing to support something, and using a tool that explicitly stops something from working that otherwise works without issue. Play integrity is a tool which does not base any of its certification decisions in privacy or security, rather leverages it for anticompetitive reasons. This is known and trivially verifiable.

I do know what these terms mean in a legal context. I am claiming that play integrity is an anticompetitive and monopolistic tool, of which VW decided to use. I am not claiming VW is a monopoly. What you are claiming is their right to do, is not their right at all, and is illegal.

	▲	Arainach 7 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		You've made a lot of leaps. IF something were declared to be anticompetitive, it would be in the context of the provider of the service. There is no law or moral issue with Volkswagen using it. You may disagree with the concept of Device Integrity, but it is a feature with plenty of history and demand. Companies want their services accessed from secure platforms for security, and this is not inherently anticompetitive.