Add the NOTICE file Apache 2.0 section 4(d) requires

[basil-k-aji-dev]

Closes #113

Why

ARTEMIS is Apache-2.0 and includes source developed by Minitap, Inc. from mobile-use, which is also Apache-2.0 and ships a NOTICE file. Section 4(d) says that where the original work includes a NOTICE, a redistribution must carry a readable copy of the attribution notices it contains. This repository has a LICENSE and no NOTICE, so those notices are not being carried forward.

Verified rather than assumed, since the whole obligation hinges on the upstream file existing:

$ gh api repos/minitap-ai/mobile-use/contents/NOTICE --jq '.size'
556
$ gh api repos/google/artemis/contents/NOTICE
{"message":"Not Found","status":"404"}
$ gh api repos/google/artemis --jq .license.spdx_id
Apache-2.0

The README already credits Minitap, and the source headers already carry Copyright 2025-2026 Minitap, Inc.. Both are good, and neither is the thing 4(d) asks for: it wants the contents of the upstream NOTICE, which includes an attribution request that appears nowhere in this repository today.

What

A root NOTICE carrying ARTEMIS's own copyright line, a statement of the inclusion, and the upstream notices reproduced verbatim below a separator. Reproduced without edits, because 4(d) asks for a readable copy of what the file says, not a summary of it. The upstream attribution request travels with it, which also satisfies the thing Minitap actually asked for.

One line added to the README's License section pointing at the file, so a reader who starts there can find it.

Testing

Nothing executable changed, so make test has nothing to exercise here and I have not claimed a run. What I did check is that no packaging or build config references LICENSE in a way a sibling NOTICE would need adding to; pyproject.toml mentions it only inside its own license header comment, and there is no MANIFEST.in.

If ARTEMIS ships wheels or images where the license file is copied in by an explicit path, NOTICE should ride along with it, and I am happy to add that here if you point me at the spot.

Note

I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. The claim in the issue is checkable and I checked it; whether Google wants this exact wording is yours to decide, and I will take any rewrite of the header lines without argument. The reproduced block below the separator should stay byte-identical to upstream.