Google Artemis copies mobile-use code and strips attribution – open‑source licensing implications

Google’s Artemis mirrors mobile-use code with near‑identical files

Conclusion: Google’s Artemis repository contains 228 files that are word‑for‑word copies of the open‑source mobile‑use project, showing a direct code lift.

The founder of mobile‑use, a startup that achieved 100 % on Google DeepMind’s AndroidWorld benchmark, discovered that Google’s newly released Artemis tool for mobile automation shares almost the entire codebase with his project. Out of 229 files in Artemis, 228 match mobile‑use exactly, including a uniquely named agent called “hopper” and its prompt.

Original authors were deliberately removed from commit history

Conclusion: The commit history in Artemis was altered to replace the three original mobile‑use authors with a different name, violating attribution requirements.

A commit in the Artemis repository shows the original authors – Pierre‑Louis Favreau, Jean‑Pierre Lo, and Nicolas Dehandschoewercker – being replaced by another author’s name. The removal is evident in the commit diff and was not corrected until the issue was publicly raised.

License used by mobile‑use and its attribution clause

Conclusion: mobile‑use is licensed under Apache 2.0 with a NOTICE file that explicitly requests attribution, which Google failed to honor.

The mobile‑use repository states that it is released under the Apache 2.0 license and includes a NOTICE file that asks downstream users to retain attribution notices. Apache 2.0 §4 requires that “all copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices” be kept in derivative works. Stripping author names from file headers and the README breaches this clause.

"You must retain, in the Source form of any Derivative Works that You distribute, all copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices from the Source form of the Work…" – Apache License 2.0, Section 4.

Community reaction: legal vs. ethical perspectives

Conclusion: Commenters agree that while the copying may be legally permissible under a permissive license, the removal of attribution is a clear violation and ethically unacceptable.

  • Several Reddit users pointed out that the Apache 2.0 license does not allow removal of attribution, and the commit alteration is a direct breach.
  • Others noted that even if the code can be used, claiming credit without acknowledging the original creators is plagiarism and damages trust in open‑source ecosystems.
  • A few comments suggested that Google could avoid the issue by forking the repository properly and preserving the NOTICE file, which they eventually did after the controversy.

Timeline of the attribution fix

Conclusion: Google added a minimal attribution after community pressure, but the fix came only after the issue was publicly highlighted.

  • 11 Sept 2026 – Issue #40 opened on the Artemis GitHub repo documenting the missing attribution.
  • 12 Sept 2026 – A commit (371aa6df568...) added a brief acknowledgment in the README, stating that the project includes code from Minitap, Inc.
  • The commit history still shows the original author names removed, indicating the fix was superficial.

Legal recourse and practical steps for the original authors

Conclusion: The mobile‑use team can pursue a copyright claim for violation of the Apache 2.0 attribution requirement, and they should consider a DMCA takedown or a settlement request.

  • Under Apache 2.0, failure to retain attribution is a breach of the license, giving the original copyright holders the right to enforce compliance.
  • A formal DMCA notice to GitHub can request removal of the infringing code or demand proper attribution.
  • Engaging a copyright attorney, as suggested by commenters, could lead to a settlement, especially given Google’s resources.

Broader implications for open‑source governance

Conclusion: This case highlights the need for clearer enforcement mechanisms and community vigilance when large corporations adopt permissively‑licensed code.

  • Companies must audit their use of open‑source components to ensure compliance with attribution clauses.
  • Project maintainers should consider adding explicit attribution enforcement language or using licenses with stronger copyleft provisions if they wish to prevent such misuse.
  • The open‑source community benefits from transparent reporting and swift issue tracking, as demonstrated by the Reddit and Hacker News discussions.

Key takeaways

  • Google’s Artemis repository copied 228 of 229 files from mobile‑use, a project that topped the AndroidWorld benchmark.
  • The original authors’ names were removed from the commit history, violating the Apache 2.0 attribution requirement.
  • Community consensus is that the act is both a legal breach of the license and an ethical violation.
  • The original developers have viable legal pathways to enforce attribution or seek remediation.
  • The incident underscores the importance of diligent license compliance, especially for large corporations leveraging open‑source software.

Sources