... the comment went so far as to ask why it was open source at all if there was such concern of a freeloading. The fact that it could remain open source and still avoid freeloading just strengthens that argument and undermines your attempt to defend Google's response to the freeloaders. You also brought up the GPL as the open source way to avoid freeloaders, so your new goal of pretending I'm the one claiming GPL would be "open" (especially when I directly compared it to "closed", not "open") seems to be nothing more than trying to hope I'm too stupid to notice.

Again: this is a very simple argument: you seem really angry about freeloaders, and yet you chose the license that allows them to exist: as the person you are responding to said, if you care this much, why did you make everything this open? You could have just made it closed source, or you could have used a more closed (yet user-benefiting!) license such as GPL. To be clear: I empathize with your pain (I made similar licensing mistakes a while ago, and ended up with tons of freeloaders), but I can't empathize with your continued complaints and name-calling as if this is something other people did to you :(.

As it stands, you have now built a scenario where the people who play along with you (comply with the CTS, get the Google apps, etc.) are handcuffed (making it not exactly "open" anymore for them anyway) and the people who don't (Amazon) are on your "shit list" (leading to any of new SDK-related terms, new closed critical components, temporary closures that aren't "owned up to" as "closed", and when all else fails: bitter tongue lashings on online forums with negative terms like "freeloader" bandied about)... you are trying to have your cake and eat it too, and that's really disingenuous and entirely low of Google.