> Google Play ToS: https://www.google.com/mobile/android/market-tos.html

[..]

> And primarily 4.2, which you already found: In the event of a conflict between the Terms and any such licenses, the open source software licenses shall prevail with respect to those components.

No, I didn't find that, I found a similar clause in the overall Google ToS which, as I said, didn't seem like it would be applicable to third party applications. I see, this is what you were referring to. 4.2 would definitely qualify as the kind of blanket exemption I was looking for - if it is actually in effect.

Interesting. Your first link is not the Google Play ToS; it's your second link which calls itself the "Google Play Terms of Service", while your first link is the "Android Market Terms of Service", and does not contain the text "Google Play". But "Android Market" is a dead brand. And a relevant-looking page on android.com contains links to the Google Play ToS and other agreements, but not your Android Market ToS:

https://www.android.com/market/terms.html

Plus, the Android Market ToS says ©2011 at the bottom. Combining those indications, I think that despite being still up on www.google.com, it's outdated and no longer in effect.

I suppose that the failure of the new ToS to include similar language is probably a mistake, as is the fact that the Play ToS contains so many terms (like the stream ripping clause I quoted) that seem like they're intended for media rather than apps, but have no explicit limitation to the former. But that doesn't change the fact that the ToS is what it is, and has been for years, yet people still upload GPL stuff.

Also, if Google were to fix this it wouldn't just be a matter of adding the clause back. As I mentioned, from what I can tell (not an Android user myself), Google Play encrypts APKs at rest as a DRM measure; since modifying and redistributing them would require cracking the encryption, the Play ToS's anti-DRM-circumvention clause is presumably an "additional restriction" from the GPL's point of view. (If we ignore the who-contracts-with-whom question I raised, at any rate.) Giving the GPL priority prevents incompatibility, but Google presumably wouldn't want there to be a loophole where crackers could legally reverse engineer the DRM that applies to all apps by claiming to do it for the purpose of distributing a GPL app. This wasn't an issue in 2011 because the encryption feature hadn't been released yet; the Market ToS has an anti-circumvention clause too, but if there is no actual DRM to circumvent, there's no issue.

Of course, there is a solution: Google could just allow developers to turn off DRM on a per-app basis. But they'd have to care enough to implement that.

Which is essentially the same problem as with Apple. I said that Google's and Apple's ToSes were alike in enforcing random usage rules on apps with no exceptions, but there's a difference in quantity: since Apple's has separate sections for iTunes proper and the App Store, it doesn't have the same kinds of probably-not-intended-to-apply rules as Google's. In fact, aside from DRM clauses, the only restrictions in Apple's ToS that apply to third-party apps distributed with their own ToS are four paragraphs of "APP STORE AND APP STORE FOR APPLE TV PRODUCT USAGE RULES", of which two are a prohibition on using the same iTunes account on multiple commercial or multi-user devices, and the other two are essentially a description of DRM limitations. If Apple wanted to properly support GPL on the store, it would have to add an option for developers to disable DRM on their apps, same as Google, but then legally speaking it wouldn't need to add any dangerous-seeming blanket exception clause; it would just need to add an exception to those four paragraphs. Again, a matter of caring.

Historically, Google has cared a lot more about open source and particularly the GPL while Apple has kind of turned up its nose - but then, historically, Apple was under different management than it is today. Maybe I should try filing a Radar.