Responding to the Controversy about YOLOv5
blog.roboflow.ai
blog.roboflow.ai
> 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 doubt, save yourself a headache and just use a different name.
When you have no doubt, save yourself a headache and read the article. ;)
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.
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?
As models become brand names and franchises I wonder if academics will start trademarking them like many big open source projects do.
There is no controversy. Let it lie.
These algorithms are (mostly) written by different people. People build on each others work in academia all the timr.
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
> 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.