[seba_dos1]

You're vigorously defending a poorly thought out title by inventing irrelevant contexts and falsely accusing multiple people of being wrong because they claimed such uncontroversial things like "AOSP is Android". Sure, if we want to be strictly correct then AOSP is not Android, but rather the name of a Google project that distributes the source code of Android - but that's not how the term is commonly used in these discussions nor how you used it either.

What people objected to is the concept of "breaking free from Android" by using a distribution of Google-developed Android. Interpreting the title as "break free from flavors of Android that can use the Google's trademark in their marketing; here's one that can't" is just ridiculous and not what anyone will think about when reading it. The current one ("break free from Google") is still objectionable, but slightly less since one could perhaps make a somewhat correct point that relying on Google-developed codebase that's soft-forked by someone else actually is significant enough step away from using something that comes straight from Google and tightly integrates with their proprietary services. It's still quite obviously hyperbolic, especially when actual non-Android alternatives also exist.

[palata]

> Sure, if we want to be strictly correct then AOSP is not Android, but rather the name of a Google project that distributes the source code of Android

Thank you.

I do find it ironic that you could not understand what I mean given that you're the kind of people who say "GNU/Linux".

[seba_dos1]

This means GOS is not AOSP either, because it's not that particular project. It takes the Android source produced by AOSP and builds on it. But what you agreed to is just pointless pedantry that leads directly to this outcome, as everyone uses "AOSP" to refer to what AOSP produces (which is a particular flavor of Android that serves as a base to build other flavors on).

It stops being ironic when you take some time to understand that the two cases only appear related superficially, but are actually quite different. You could even say opposite.