"open" is an overloaded term that doesn't mean anything nowadays. "open source" on the other hand has a clear definition and Android definitely fits that definition.

Even yesterday, when Android 3/4 was not available as open-source, Android 2.2 and 2.3 which are the most deployed versions were definitely available as open-source.

And this is relevant, because that's the power of open-source. If you're unhappy with how Google is managing the project you do have the right to fork it. Amazon did just that. Xorg also came into existence that way, amongst other projects.

And yes, it takes resources and you've got to make it popular somehow and that ain't easy and I also fear that Google may close future versions of Android completely, but is it mature enough for a fork to be possible and to survive? Hell yes. Can the parent (Google) attack forks based on patents? No, because the Apache license protects you from that scenario (it's a little ironic that a pro-commercial license is safer than GPL v.2)

Which is why I consider Android to be a lot more "open" than the other 2 alternatives floating around, iOS and WinMo. That's my own definition anyway, which is why I began by highlighting the meaninglessness of the word.

The GPL v.2 was written in a time when it was rare that patents were wielded as weapons.

Yeah, it's too bad that people won't just migrate to GPLv3. The GPLv3 codified the FSF's working practice of allowing continued use if the offender comes into compliance. Following the letter of the GPLv2 is much more severe. Fortunately, I don't think anyone's ever really insisted on enforcing GPLv2's termination clauses and Linus and most other major GPLv2 projects seem inclined to follow the FSF's model. I don't think FSF will cause trouble--but lawyer-led asshole behavior seems to be on the rise.