A dash between GPL and violated would probably help.

I wanted to append [idea] but it became too long. I think there should be balance "musings" and actual work. I learned very valuable lessons in my wakegp research. Even though I haven't completed it. If the one doing this research would be me, I would go for no actual work as long as I can. And when I start to do the work, I should do as little as I can and move very slowly. Like the saying "When you move slowly, you can see the path ahead clear". After all, we should know if the next step we go forward, the ground under us is solid.

Thanks for the hints. Of course, it's very very difficult. But one thing I think you missed, is that I'm proposing a "byte equivalent decompilation". And after that, we should go into reading the code readable and understandable.

If we could create a program doing all this, automatically or semi-automatically, it will be great-great because then not releasing the kernel code doesn't matter. I believe if enough effort and time is put into it, there is a good chance we could see such a thing in like 5-7 years.

After that, we might be able to target the binary blobs, the propriety firmwares. Those might have some legal issue, of course. But as long as it is used only to write a FOSS alternative, that probably won't be an issue, I think.

I've read the abstract of your article. I am not much in the field of decompilers. Let alone deobfuscation. It's even hard for me to type it :))

I think it is probably a safe assumption that the kernel binary found on Android devices is not obfuscated. Tho I probably need more research to confirm this.

Well I knew that checking if two binary circuits are equivalent is NP hard. Checking semantic equivalency of C code, of course, should be harder.

The goal is not proving anything. They don't release the source code, so we try to get it ourselves. Then make the process of mainlining devices easier.