If Google builds this kernel from the ground up and chooses to license it MIT, how is any binary derived from that "built on the backs of the FOSS community?"

There's nothing to keep, Android already doesn't use the GNU userland. They built their own libc (bionic) and the commands are all using busybox, IIRC.

This means all the work of the OSS community is 'free' for corporations to take.

Note: this is clearly sarcasm, and it pains me that I need to put this here, but some won't get it.

In any case, even AGPL does not require you to create a pull request, you only have to make the source available to your users, i.e. everyone who connects to your patched server.

This wouldn't retroactively change already released code however.

1) Linux doesn't prevent tivoization, either; it uses the GPLv2, whereas anti-tivoization language was introduced in the GPLv3.

2) If Google wanted to make this proprietary, they could've made this proprietary. Why bother releasing it under an absurdly-permissive license if they wanted it to be proprietary?

"I wish people understood the dangers of BSD style licenses"

I wish people understood the dangers of copyleft licenses, particularly strict ones. The same exact rules preventing reuse in proprietary products apply to other FOSS projects as well. The GPL's "compatibility" with other FOSS licenses is a one-way street.

BSD-style licenses are literally as free as you can get (short of a license that's functionally equivalent to a public domain dedication). Any other license adds restrictions and reduces freedoms. Absolutely nothing about this project indicates "proprietary"; the license choice indicates the exact opposite.

If you want this fixed, get someone with the money and the will to end the copyrightability of software. Or find a different solution to let users have control over their computing even when they don't have control over the OS - there's no fundamental reason why this should require legal solutions, as opposed to, say, cryptographic ones.