In 3.2 of the Android SDK (and Android Studio) EULA, it says that I am not supposed to develop for non-CTS compliant versions of Android. Does that mean Google can sue people who use Android Studio to develop apps for rooted phones, or apps (like the free open-source MicroG) intended to replace Google's proprietary Android Play Services?
Here are the exact wordings of the relevant parts of the agreement
1.3 A "compatible implementation" means any Android device that (i) complies with the Android Compatibility Definition document, which can be found at the Android compatibility website (http://source.android.com/compatibility) and which may be updated from time to time; and (ii) successfully passes the Android Compatibility Test Suite (CTS).
3.2 You may not use this SDK to develop applications for other platforms (including non-compatible implementations of Android) or to develop another SDK. You are of course free to develop applications for other platforms, including non-compatible implementations of Android, provided that this SDK is not used for that purpose.
I observed that https://source.android.com/compatibility/android-cdd.html#9_4_alternate_execution_environments [C-0-4] prohibits compatible devices from offering "alternate runtimes" granting root abilities. So if
su is considered an alternate runtime, any phone with
su (aka rooted phones) fail CTS.
Based off of question Confusing EULA statement in Adnroid SDK .