Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Responding to the Controversy about YOLOv5

blog.roboflow.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 26 posts

Re: Responding to the Controversy about YOLOv5

#11

Post by paulryanrogers »

dheera wrote: post #9
simonh wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ou…

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?

This is where trademarks and foundations may need to be used.

Re: Responding to the Controversy about YOLOv5

#12

Post by [deleted] »

paulryanrogers wrote: post #11
dheera wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

This is where trademarks and foundations may need to be used.

[deleted]

Re: Responding to the Controversy about YOLOv5

#13

Post by renewiltord »

dheera wrote: post #9
simonh wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ou…

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.

There is no controversy. Let it lie.

Re: Responding to the Controversy about YOLOv5

#16

Post by dheera »

yeldarb wrote: post #10
dheera wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

In the business world we have trademarks for this. As models become brand names and franchises I wonder if academics will start trademarking them like many big open source projects do.

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.

Re: Responding to the Controversy about YOLOv5

#17

Post by ma2rten »

usmannk wrote: post #6

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.

Reddie seems to approve of v4, but not v5.

Re: Responding to the Controversy about YOLOv5

#18

Post by sreevisakh »

ma2rten wrote: post #17
usmannk wrote: post #6

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.

Reddie seems to approve of v4, but not v5.

The article gave me the impression that pjreddie hasn't yet commented on whether he approves v5 or not. Or, did I miss something?

Re: Responding to the Controversy about YOLOv5

#19

Post by ma2rten »

sreevisakh wrote: post #18
ma2rten wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reddie seems to approve of v4, but not v5.

The article gave me the impression that pjreddie hasn't yet commented on whether he approves v5 or not. Or, did I miss something?

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.

Re: Responding to the Controversy about YOLOv5

#20

Post by voqv »

simonh wrote: post #7
smacktoward wrote: post #2

> Is YOLOv5 the Correct Name? > Candidly, the Roboflow team does not know. 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…

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 ou…

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]

[1] https://github.com/ultralytics/yolov5/issues/2 [2] https://github.com/AlexeyAB/darknet/issues/5920

Post reply on HN