Do you have a source for that? I can believe that select OEMs are getting preview internal access, but I strongly doubt they are releasing with ROMs cooked from those internal branches. That would open the OEMs to GPL requests/violations. And internal access doesnt mean doing the release processes that chew up time.
Giving preferential treatment to certain OEMs is its own issue though, but its a anti-competitive behaviour issue rather than a licencing issue.
I was overly vague, and “Android” means different things in different places. I usually say “AOSP” for Open Source Android and “Google Android” for open core Android. This also isn’t quite accurate.
AOSP is basically a repo, not a ROM, not an OS, not even code (technicaly). This has always been pushed to on “release”, not during development.
Google has it’s own (private) repos for development. I suspect some OEMs have access to HEAD.
Google used to publish device code for Nexus/Pixel devices. This stopped in 2025. This was separate to AOSP, but would build with AOSP for “Android Android” or “Open Source Android”. Some people would “add gapps” to get closer to “Google Android”.
Kernal code from Google for Pixel devices is still publically available as is required by the GPL. Basically no other part of Android is GPL and has this requirement.
A “release” pushed to AOSP used to basically line up with a Nexus/Pixel update. At the end of 2025 they changed it to 4 times a year, now they are changing it to twice a year.
“Android Security Bulletin” is a different thing, OEMs get early access to it. Everyone else gets delayed releases by about a quarter. This delay was new in 2025, this will continue to happen.
Google isn’t giving built ROMs to OEMs, even if it was, assuming it’s internal only, it wouldn’t be a GPL violation. AOSP has never distributed built ROMs.
Do you have a source for that? I can believe that select OEMs are getting preview internal access, but I strongly doubt they are releasing with ROMs cooked from those internal branches. That would open the OEMs to GPL requests/violations. And internal access doesnt mean doing the release processes that chew up time.
Giving preferential treatment to certain OEMs is its own issue though, but its a anti-competitive behaviour issue rather than a licencing issue.
I was overly vague, and “Android” means different things in different places. I usually say “AOSP” for Open Source Android and “Google Android” for open core Android. This also isn’t quite accurate.
AOSP is basically a repo, not a ROM, not an OS, not even code (technicaly). This has always been pushed to on “release”, not during development.
Google has it’s own (private) repos for development. I suspect some OEMs have access to HEAD.
Google used to publish device code for Nexus/Pixel devices. This stopped in 2025. This was separate to AOSP, but would build with AOSP for “Android Android” or “Open Source Android”. Some people would “add gapps” to get closer to “Google Android”.
Kernal code from Google for Pixel devices is still publically available as is required by the GPL. Basically no other part of Android is GPL and has this requirement.
A “release” pushed to AOSP used to basically line up with a Nexus/Pixel update. At the end of 2025 they changed it to 4 times a year, now they are changing it to twice a year.
“Android Security Bulletin” is a different thing, OEMs get early access to it. Everyone else gets delayed releases by about a quarter. This delay was new in 2025, this will continue to happen.
Google isn’t giving built ROMs to OEMs, even if it was, assuming it’s internal only, it wouldn’t be a GPL violation. AOSP has never distributed built ROMs.