Google has been accused of using code, prompts and test cases from Minitap’s open source mobile automation project without initially providing the attribution required by its license.
Minitap co founder and CEO Nicolas Dehandschoewercker said parts of Google’s Artemis mobile automation repository closely matched material from Minitap’s mobile use project. Mobile use is designed to let AI systems control real Android devices through natural language instructions.
The disputed material was released under the Apache 2.0 license, which allows reuse but requires certain copyright and attribution notices to remain in place.
Google later added an acknowledgement stating that the Artemis project includes source code developed by Minitap.
| Detail | Information |
|---|---|
| Minitap project | mobile use |
| Google project | Artemis |
| Main purpose | AI control of Android devices |
| License | Apache 2.0 |
| Allegation | Code and related material used without initial attribution |
| Google response in repository | Added Minitap attribution |
| Disputed material | Device connection code, agent prompts and test tasks |
| Benchmark involved | AndroidWorld |
Minitap says several parts closely matched its work
According to Dehandschoewercker, the similarities extended beyond general ideas or common programming patterns.
He alleged that implementations covering Android device connections, Hopper agent instructions and WhatsApp messaging tasks matched Minitap’s work closely.
Minitap also said that an Artemis package file once contained the names of three Minitap contributors: Pierre Louis Favreau, Jean Pierre Lo and Nicolas Dehandschoewercker.
The company claims that this file was later replaced through a force push in August.
These claims come from Minitap, so they should be treated as allegations rather than an independent finding that Google deliberately copied code improperly.
Google later added attribution
After the issue became public, Google updated the Artemis repository with a notice acknowledging that parts of the project contain source code developed by Minitap.
That change is important because open source software can generally be reused, but developers still need to follow the conditions attached to the relevant license.
Apache 2.0 permits modification and redistribution, including in commercial projects. However, it requires applicable copyright notices and license information to be preserved, while significant changes should also be identified.
The dispute therefore centers less on whether Google was allowed to reuse the code and more on whether it initially followed those attribution requirements correctly.
AndroidWorld rankings are also part of the dispute
Minitap has raised a separate concern involving AndroidWorld, a benchmark used to evaluate AI agents that interact with Android devices.
The company says its own benchmark results are outdated and that it has been trying to get them refreshed.
At the same time, Google’s Artemis project was reportedly updated on the leaderboard in August and ranked second.
Because Google maintains the benchmark, Minitap has questioned the difference in how the two projects were represented.
That does not by itself prove unfair treatment, but it adds another layer to the disagreement between the two groups.
Minitap says its current technology has moved ahead
Minitap has since moved away from relying solely on the open source version of its software.
Dehandschoewercker said the company now uses closed source technology internally and argued that its current system has advanced significantly beyond the code available in the public mobile use repository.
He also claimed Google's implementation is several months behind Minitap’s present work.
The broader issue highlights an important part of open source development. Publicly available code can often be reused legally, including by very large companies, but the license terms still matter.
In this case, Google has added attribution after Minitap raised concerns. What remains disputed is whether the original use complied with Apache 2.0 requirements and whether any additional action is necessary.
Discussion (0)
Be the first to comment.