>>>>on what hinges the "illicit" property of a fork for your definition ?
>>
>>Google asserts rights, individuals flout at will. Very difficult to combat once that starts- because laws and principles only can apply if the populace supports the compact. In the case of privacy, hackers who protect Joe Average from snoops are heroes and will be more so. It's already happening: e.g. a simple hack prevents Google tracking your movement because you accidentally confirmed you're OK with this default behavior.
>
>was under the impression you meant forks like cyanogen and others stemming from Android Open which are not done (usually) by the person loading the version onto his phone. As long as unlocking a phone during contract time is put aside, I have nothing on the radar which would make a fork of android (from creating and installing POV both) illicit - IANAL of course...

I had an android tablet for a few days, and then seeing what sorts of operations require a google login, I just gave up on it (gave it to daughter, who uses it for free games only and keeps it in her kitchen - stuff that into your statistics, Google). If/when I buy next phone, it will be a model supported by Ubuntu. Until then, I'm quite happy with my Nokia E5... which I bought quickly when Microsoft installed their commissar there. Just like 2007 when I bought a laptop for my wife, quickly while it was still available in the not-yet-infected-with-the-vista color.