[etler]

Open Source has an accepted definition. The Open Source Definition was created for the purpose of clarifying what should b required to label something Open Source. Just because they don't go beyond that to the point that others in the community do doesn't mean it isn't open source.

http://opensource.org/osd

In particular:

>License Must Not Restrict Other Software

>The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software.

Not only does Open Source not imply everything on the platform should be Open Source, it's explicitly against its definition. Google Play services does does not affect the base android operating system. It is given root permissions on the Google backed distributions of the Android Operating System.

It's perfectly fine to complain about Google giving itself a root level backdoor into their official distro. If a less trusted company were to do the same thing, there would be a perfectly validated uproar. But don't change the definition of open source to bolster your argument. In your edit you say "Android is no longer meaningfully open". That's fine, but don't say that it isn't open source, or that it's closed source. That's blatantly by definition false, and the open source community takes their definitions seriously for a reason.