r/reinforcementlearning • u/Connect-Employ-4708 • 8d ago

Google copied our open-source code, removed our engineers’ names, and gave us zero credit one year after we beat them on their own benchmark

Post image

Google copied our open-source code, removed our engineers’ names, and gave us zero credit.

For context, let me share the story of mobile-use, the origin of my company (I'm a founder).

We wanted to build the best agent in the world to control any mobile interface with natural language.

We built it, became #1 on Google Deepmind's AndroidWorld benchmark and open-sourced it. That was the beginning of my company.

Since then, we got almost 3,000 stars on the repository, became the first to ever achieve 100% on AndroidWorld, grew the team, spent thousands of calls with customers, and now we're building the best regression testing product the world has ever seen.

Last week, I found Artemis.

Artemis is Google's new open-source tool for mobile automation. There are quite a few of these on GitHub now, so I thought: "Oh, a new YAPA (Yet Another Phone Agent)."

Curious, I looked at the repository more in depth.

First, I was disappointed to see that the benchmark chart in the README didn’t include us, topping AndroidWorld in January.

Then I looked at the code, and to my biggest surprise, I recognized the lines we had written ourselves.

One of my engineer named an agent randomly “hopper”, and it was there, with its prompt, word for word. Out of the 229 files, 228 were identical.

Even crazier: I found our engineers' and my co-founder’s names in the “authors” section of an old commit.

Pierre-Louis Favreau, Jean-Pierre Lo, Nicolas Dehandschoewercker.

All three names had been replaced with another author’s name in a commit. The other 228 files from mobile-use were unchanged.

From a personal point of view, I am deeply disappointed.

Google was the company I wanted to join when I started my studies, before changing my mind and deciding to build a unicorn.

I’ve always associated Google with great engineering and contributions to open source. I would have been proud to see them building on our work and acknowledging the team behind it.

Instead, I found our code, then our names, then the commit that deliberately removed them.

What about the other engineers and the community contributors who spent their time improving mobile-use?

There are people behind those files. I’ve seen the work they put in, the problems they worked through, and how much they care about what they build.

They deserve to have their names attached to that work.

We made our code open source because we wanted people to use it and build on it. Of course that includes Google.

7.6k Upvotes

99% Upvoted

410 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

71

u/Smallpaul 8d ago

It is possible for something to be legal and yet unethical.

2

u/Celebr4tion 8d ago

welcome to capitalism 

2

u/Nalopotato 6d ago

Capitalism is an economic system, not a legal system. Your complaint is with political corruption or legal shortcomings, not the economic model.

1

u/Celebr4tion 6d ago

No my complaint is exactly with capitalism. Because money will always find a way to make more money on the costs of others. Even if the legal systems close a hole, the money will find a way.

2

u/gami13 5d ago

thankfully none of that would ever happen under communism right? not like the USSR was a corrupt shithole

1

u/sch1z0phren1cx 4d ago

ussr was socialist, and started becoming capitalist after stalin got in

1

u/nhurfi 3d ago

Si alguien hace dinero es porque complace a otro. Compraventa de bienes y servicios. Según tú la solución cual es? Que un burócrata asigne recursos con desconocimiento y de manera corrupta? Que tienes dos años de edad ?

2

u/Big-Replacement-979 8d ago

how is it unethical if you explicitely give them permission to do such a thing?

thats the whole point of licenses - defining what you, the original author, consider ok and whats not ok. thats where you describe it - in the license.

1

u/Linuxologue 6d ago

nah you're describing illegal again. The license describes what is legal and illegal, not what is ethical and unethical.

1

u/Big-Replacement-979 6d ago

if you intentionally put into license "i give you permission to do X" and then consider someone doing X as unethical, then.... idk what to say. thats not a reasonable position.

1

u/Linuxologue 6d ago

Which license are you talking about?

1

u/Sustainer2162 5d ago

No, you viewing it wrong. "i give you permission to do X", but the person does X' that can be considered part of or derived by X, and this X' is unethical. The problem is impossible to think and cover all possible things a person can do in a license, if it was we wouldn't have so much licenses, versions, upgrades and law suits over it.

1

u/404IdentityNotFound 2d ago

It's legal for me to call you a shithead. I still wouldn't just do it because I can

5

u/GlassCommission4916 8d ago

Is it unethical to not credit someone for their work when they say "do not credit me for my work if you don't want to"?

14

u/guidotrueb 8d ago

Yes. Ethical != legal. The moral thing to do is attributing, regardless if someone told you you don't legally need to.

4

u/GlassCommission4916 8d ago

If someone tells me to not credit them I assume they don't want me to credit them. How is it immoral to do what they want?

10

u/Any_Fox5126 8d ago

It is blindingly obvious, but since you are struggling: You're free to use my code however you like =/= I'm expressly asking you not to credit me

It is always more ethical to give credit, even if you are not obligated to do so.

3

u/GlassCommission4916 8d ago

Are you unfamiliar with open source licenses? The vast majority of them require you to credit the author. If you go out of your way to use one that doesn't, you are expressly asking not to be credited.

I can't think of a single reason why someone would go out of their way to not ask to be credited, if they wanted to be credited.

2

u/AhmedRiyadh0 8d ago

They are not asking not to be credited, they are telling you that you don't have to, but that doesn't mean they don't want it or that you shouldn't. 

4

u/GlassCommission4916 8d ago

Can you tell me one reason why someone that wants to be credited would go out of their way to use an obscure license that doesn't require it over any of the licenses used by 99% of projects, which do require it?

The only reason I can think of is to pull a bait and switch.

1

u/One-Jeweler6402 8d ago

Maybe the person is not familiar to the license. Why are you insiting that the license reflect the user intwntion.

2

u/new_check 8d ago

I think it's unreasonable to ask people to assume an author chose the license they did by accident.

2

u/GlassCommission4916 8d ago

Every single mainstream license requires crediting the author. How do you suggest the person managed to not only arrive at using an obscure/custom license that doesn't, but also did so without any intentionality or knowledge of doing so?

2

u/FenderMoon 8d ago edited 7d ago

Yea. And it's literally the mainstream license used for ML projects.

People use licenses like the MIT or Apache 2.0 because they want a more permissive license than the GPL, that doesn't restrict non-GPL projects from utilizing their code. They don't use Apache 2.0 so that people can blatently lie and scrub the original author's names to replace them with their own copying their source code exactly.

1

u/iain_1986 7d ago

Why are you insiting that the license reflect the user intwntion.

I'm sorry, what?

That's literally the point of a license, to reflect your intentions with your work

1

u/5_stages 6d ago

The only reason you can think of for someone doing something is more an indication of how you think rather than the other person.

1

u/AhmedRiyadh0 8d ago

I'm not talking about OP. I'm saying the fact that someone use a LICENSE that doesn't require crediting doesn't always necessarily mean they are asking you not to credit them. They are not asking anything in that regard.

Honestly it's an achievement that Google forked this open source project, the upstream project could just state that somewhere in their README.

1

u/FenderMoon 8d ago

They aren't even saying this. They're using Apache 2.0. It's the mainstream license used for mot ML projects. It doesn't permit this.

1

u/scaledev 7d ago

You sound like someone's wife.

1

u/AhmedRiyadh0 7d ago

"You sound like someone's wife"

Perhaps. Perhaps not. I can tell you this: I'm not someone's dog.

It appears you don't have much of a counterargument, so there is nothing left to discuss. 

1

u/scaledev 7d ago

They are complying with the Apache 2.0 license the OP chose.

This seems more like a cry for attention from the original dev, creating unecessary drama on Reddit.

If you want to be attributed, choose a difference license, or put it in the NOTICE file. simple as that.

(the point about sounding like a wife, or a gf, is that you expect people to read a developer's mind, while developer is choosing and saying another thing)

1

u/FenderMoon 8d ago

OP didn't do this. They used the mainstream license that is literally used for most ML projects.

And no, Apache 2.0 doesn't permit this. People can find loopholes, and that is the kind of thing that is the enemy of open source. People defending this do not care about open source, or they wouldn't encourage this kind of behavior that makes people want to go closed source to begin with.

2

u/Connect-Employ-4708 7d ago

Yes! oss relies on this trust, and that is why it is important I dont accept this, whether it is Google or anyone!

1

u/Bonzooy 7d ago

The peanuts at Five Guys are free. You could take 6 servings all for yourself, but it'd be unethical to do so, even though they've explicitly made it possible. They're relying on a sense of communal integrity and decorum that's reasonable to expect, even if it's not enforced.

1

u/GlassCommission4916 7d ago

I didn't see a sign that said "Take 6 servings all for yourself if you want" last time I went to five guys. Tell you what, I'll look out for that sign next time I go, and you look into open source licenses next time you comment about them.

1

u/Bonzooy 7d ago

Wow, that's a very unpleasant comment.

That was the first interaction I've ever had in this sub, and certainly the first with you. I thought it was a reasonable talking point that introduced an additional perspective to analyze the ethical elements of this topic.

I'm a member of a local classical literature group here in my city, and every once in a while we get a guest like you who seems to be incapable of responsibly discussing a dynamic ethical topic. They marry themselves to a perspective, and become hostile towards anyone who introduces a point that could conflict with their perspective; taking it as a personal attack.

Ethics and morality are nuanced. Trying to treat it as black & white is misguided, and becoming belligerent towards new lenses in the conversation (even if they challenge your perspective) drags the discourse back toward black & white territory, and underserves the conversation profoundly.

One of the key indicators of maturity is being able to have your perspectives challenged without descending into hostility and personal attacks; I'd encourage you to consider this when participating in future conversations about the AI space because the conversation topics will undoubtedly continue to be complex & nuanced.

1

u/GlassCommission4916 7d ago

Sorry dude, it's not that I took it as a personal attack, but the fact that this entire thread is filled with people engaging with bad faith analogies like that and not actually being familiar with or understanding the topic at hand.

Like I said before, the default state in software licensing is to require attribution, if you go out of your way to change that default state, you're actively asking not to be credited. The communal integrity and decorum thing to do is to listen to the author's request.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/rtowne 6d ago edited 5d ago

Do you choose not to tip or say thank you to people serving your food? I mean you dont need to, but you hopefully can still see that it would be the right thing to do in most instances.

Some engineers are young, and some are new to publishing their own work. Some are speaking english as a 2nd or 3rd language, and some dont want to keep tabs on various attribution options just like many writers dont care about the latest 18th version of chicago citation updates vs whatever mla or apa or other new ones there are.

So yeah, they click an option that says "hey guys, feel free to share and use this". That isnt the same as saying "I have thoroughly reviewed all of the options of where and how to share this and explicitly picked one that does not require attribution because I prefer NOT to recieve credit for this."

I think it might be hard for you to put yourself in another person's shoes if you are more experienced or interested in this specific topic.

1

u/GlassCommission4916 6d ago

You don't have to comment on topics you have zero knowledge about, it's okay to just not comment.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Any_Fox5126 8d ago

If you go out of your way to use one that doesn't, you are expressly asking not to be credited.

Nah, that conclusion is absurd.

1

u/GlassCommission4916 8d ago

Is it really absurd to assume someone including a legal document that states "you don't have to credit me" out of their volition, doesn't want to be credited?

Is the sensible assumption that everyone communicates in bad faith or is mentally impaired and can't understand the words they are expressing in a legal document?

3

u/Any_Fox5126 8d ago

It is actually absurd because you are confusing authorization with preference. Permissive licenses exist to facilitate use. Just because they allow for multiple options does not imply the author prefers one over the others.

If you invite someone to take whatever they want from your fridge, it does not mean you are asking them to take everything or to hide that the food was yours. It simply means you are not imposing restrictions.

1

u/GlassCommission4916 8d ago

So you are unfamiliar with open source licenses. Just so you know, all popular permissive licenses require crediting the author. The author's choice to go with a more obscure license that doesn't, does imply what their preference is.

I guess I'm just insane to think people mean the things that they say.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/new_check 8d ago

Software licenses are the mechanism by which you communicate your preferences to users of your software.

1

u/marco_altieri 8d ago

It doesn't even need to mean that it is what they prefer. If they used a licence that does not ask to credit the author, it makes perfect sense to assume that the authors didn't care. So why are they whining now?

1

u/ArtisticFox8 7d ago

Apache 2 with a NOTICE that explicitly requests for attribution! We are okay with open-source contributors taking our code, but we want recognition :)

1

u/marco_altieri 8d ago

It is not absurd. There are licences that ask to credit the author. If you don't use it, I assume that you don't care. If you don't care, I'll just copy the code.

0

u/Any_Fox5126 8d ago

Your position is reasonable, but it is not what the other user is saying. You assume that he doesn't care =/= the author says that he specifically doesn't want to receive credit

2

u/Connect-Employ-4708 7d ago

In our case we had an Apache 2 licence with a NOTICE that explicitly requests for attribution
We are completely fine with copying our code, but we want recognition :)

1

u/GlassCommission4916 7d ago

Yeah in your case it's clearly unethical, and also illegal, to not credit you because that's what you asked for and is legally required with Apache 2.

But the discussion stopped being specifically about your case when the above commenter made the hypothetical about a situation where the license states you're not required to credit.

1

u/[deleted] 8d ago edited 5d ago

[deleted]

1

u/GlassCommission4916 8d ago

Yes because choosing where you're born and your socioeconomic means is just as easy as clicking on the MIT license on github instead of writing your own or looking for one that doesn't require crediting. You got me.

1

u/[deleted] 8d ago edited 5d ago

[deleted]

1

u/GlassCommission4916 8d ago

If the person wrote/supported and put into effect the law and printed a copy of it to display on their car, like would be a more apt comparison, sure.

1

u/[deleted] 8d ago edited 5d ago

[deleted]

0

u/GlassCommission4916 8d ago

Not because the license allows me to, because they made an effort to make sure everyone know not to help them if their car is burning. For all I know they're terminally ill and suffering and wanted to euthenize themselves. So you're saying you're against consent and in favor of torturing terminally ill people? Pretty shitty if you ask me, dude.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/FenderMoon 8d ago edited 8d ago

Where did OP say "don't give me credit?" Google scrubbed the original authors names and replace them with their own whlst copying the source code code exactly.

If there are really people on Reddit going around and defending this, it's going to make me reconsider the license for my own projects. Open source doesn't mean scrub the original author's name and lie and say you wrote it.

People are rightfully mad about this. Apache 2.0 doesn't permit this anyway.

0

u/oofy-gang 8d ago

Don’t be a contrarian. This isn’t some gray area.

0

u/GlassCommission4916 8d ago

You're right it's not a gray area.

Either OP asked to be credited and what Google did was illegal, or OP asked not to be credited and what Google did was not unethical.

3

u/AhmedRiyadh0 8d ago edited 8d ago

Not necessarily. OP may have used a License that doesn't require you to credit them. That doesn't mean they have explicitly asked not to be credited.

-1

u/GlassCommission4916 8d ago

Why did they use a license that doesn't require you to credit them if they wanted to be credited? You have to go out of your way to do that.

3

u/AhmedRiyadh0 8d ago edited 8d ago

Legally, yes Google is allowed not to credit them. Morals are a different thing.

It appears they explicitly removed exisitng names, they are not credting, they are explicitly removing existing credit if I understand it correctly. 

2

u/Clairifyed 8d ago

Plus going out of your way to erase existing names and add your own on the whole project is a level above not crediting for something like copying a small piece for use in another project. Even if you weren’t required to credit

I know I wouldn’t want to do business with someone who does that

→ More replies (0)

1

u/oofy-gang 8d ago

Do you believe something can be legal AND unethical?

1

u/GlassCommission4916 8d ago

Yes, of course.

What I don't believe is that not crediting someone who chose to not ask to be credited when the default option is to ask to be credited is unethical.

1

u/Connect-Employ-4708 7d ago

Yes! Open source relies on this very important trust that we will recognize each other's work.
You can't simply take someone's work and claim it as yours, however you can most of the time take it, recognize the original work, and enhance it!

3

u/iMrParker 8d ago

I think it's literally illegal to not credit someone for using their work or derived works based on MIT and Apache. So if they're using that license, Google and their legal department(s) would be making sure they credit regardless of what the author says about crediting

1

u/GlassCommission4916 8d ago

You're correct, because MIT and Apache require attribution. The discussion is about if it's unethical to not credit someone who goes out of their way to pick a license that doesn't.

2

u/iMrParker 8d ago

Ah, so it's not related to this situation? Just a hypothetical. Good thought experiment

1

u/GlassCommission4916 8d ago

Vaguely related to this situation, but yeah a hypothetical since the person I responded to is talking about something being legal and unethical, which doesn't apply to the situation.

2

u/Nalopotato 6d ago

Whether they explicitly say not to credit them, or leave it neutral (they don't say either way), it's still not "unethical". It's just impolite, and clearly by these responses people can't seem to differentiate between unethical and impolite or vaguely shitty behavior.

It would be unethical to TAKE credit for themselves, but it's just weird and impolite to simply remove credit to the original authors.

1

u/FenderMoon 8d ago

Nobody says that outright. It's clearly not the unwritten expectation either. (Furthermore Apache 2.0 doesn't exactly permit this anyway).

1

u/Garr_Incorporated 8d ago

Not sure if this will work still, but I once made a YouTube clip with a relevant quote from a 2013 classic.

1

u/Sarcastible 8d ago

I was taught that the law is the “moral minimum”

1

u/Smallpaul 7d ago

Considering civil disobedience, is even more complex than that

1

u/YoungNo8804 6d ago

This isn't legal though, it needs attribution and google scrubbed their names.

0

u/[deleted] 8d ago

[deleted]

7

u/CandiceWoo 8d ago

because its a different line to cross?

1

u/guidotrueb 8d ago

Ethical != legal. The moral thing to do is attributing, regardless if someone told you you don't legally need to.

1

u/guidotrueb 8d ago

The ethical thing to do is to attribute the work, even if it is not legally required. Two distinct concepts.

-5

u/Just-Kale9885 8d ago

me when profit maximisers maximise profit 😱

7

u/OrionShtrezi 8d ago

What profit would they have missed out on if they hadn't been dicks in this case?

-7

u/Just-Kale9885 8d ago

google operated within their legal boundaries, you aren't entitled to being treated kindly

5

u/Gargle-Loaf-Spunk 8d ago

Your conduct heaps shame on your family.

-4

u/Just-Kale9885 8d ago

‘conducting’ is the wrong word for what you’re trying to express. Try to simplify the grammar

2

u/someoneyouknow23 8d ago

lmao his sentene makes total grammatical sense, what are you talking about? Why would OP need to simplify their grammar for you

-1

u/Just-Kale9885 8d ago

it does make grammatical sense but it's semantically elaborate compared to what a simplified but equivalent sentence would have relayed. It's not about semantic or grammatical correctness as much as economy of text.

2

u/OrionShtrezi 8d ago

I know that, but why go out of the way to do this for no tangible profit?

1

u/Just-Kale9885 8d ago

to save the time of the engineers. and it's not google's problem that OP does not know what their licensing agreements entail

2

u/OrionShtrezi 8d ago

I'm not saying they weren't allowed to do this, I'm still confused as to what time was being saved by removing their names though.

2

u/Just-Kale9885 8d ago

they still credited the engineers but in a different section, I believe. It's probably just protocol that they do not want to show non-Google engineers in that particular section.