Is this article addressing a strawman? I certainly raised an eyebrow at their use of the name but is there actually a "controversy"? And if so, why not be similarly upset over YOLOv4? That edition confused me just as much as v5, given that neither one came from Reddie.
What I mean is that he did not make a public statement that he approves of it. In other words, as far as we know v4 was created with his approval, but v5 was created without his approval.
Annoying characteristic of standard English language is the spread of the negation. “He doesn’t seem to approve” is the same as “He seems to not approve” which is the same as “he seems to disapprove”. Funny that you represented absence of approval and other guy interpreted presence of disapproval. I blame the language. And society. And an uncaring god.
It seems like, unless you can say with certainty that you have a legitimate claim to use an existing name, the right and safe thing to do would be to not use it. Just name your project something else. You lose the brand recognition of the existing name, but on the other hand you avoid the risk of your project getting dragged like this.
When in doubt, save yourself a headache and just use a different name.
It seems like the researchers actually working on various versions and updates of this understand and are fine with the naming, the original creator of YOLO doesn’t seem to care, and the only people kicking up a fuss are random opinionated Internet commentators that are nothing to do with it.
I don’t see what the problem is with letting the community of people actually contributing to various forms of YOLO work it out between themselves. As, er, they seem to have done.
Not that I really care, but the original GitHub issue[1] has multiple researchers "kicking up a fuss", why are you just reducing their opinion to "random opinionated commentators"?
Also, the original creator did not say he does not care ("doesn't matter what I think"), he said another maintainer of darknet/yolo should have more say. [2]
What if there are two successors of YOLOv4 that both inherit large parts of YOLOv4, make different sets of changes, achieving different sets of improvements?
Do we call them YOLOv5.0 and YOLOv5.1? How do we nomenclate the graph? What if another one inherits from both YOLOv5.0 and YOLOv5.1? Is it YOLOv6 or YOLOv(5.0,5.1).0?
A problem for when it happens. In the past, the first guys to publish theirs to the public get the first one. The other guys can just call theirs Yolo6 or miniYolo or whatever. It's not a big deal. We don't need a system for conflict resolution if no conflict is likely.
This type of thing does happen in academia. There is a family of algorithms in constraint programming called AC, and there is AC versions 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,3.1,3.2,3.3,2000,3.1* any several other variants.
These algorithms are (mostly) written by different people. People build on each others work in academia all the timr.
Although that's true, I don't think it's necessary to trademark in this case. Nobody is losing marketing potential or profits here -- it's just an issue of how to deal with nomenclature when two separate people are working on different forked improvements of the same thing without confusing the community.
Maybe I just misread this article but it really sounds like they don’t own YOLOv5. It’s someone else’s project they think is cool and are amplifying. If that’s right, then I think it’s reasonable to defer naming to whoever actually made the project!
Roboflow didn't name the project, they just benchmarked it and wrote a blog article (or two, now) about it. So, it's more like this:
> Is YOLOv5 the Correct Name?
> Candidly, the startup that decided to benchmark it and compare it to other stuff that got drawn into this because nobody bothers to pay attention to the details in the blog post they wrote does not know.
It is somewhat similar to bitcoin... bitcoin core, bitcoin cash, bitcoin gold, bitcoin this, bitcoin that. Also the original creator left the project, although he didn't use a pseudonym...
