
Responding to the Controversy about YOLOv5 - EvgeniyZh
https://blog.roboflow.ai/yolov4-versus-yolov5/
======
usmannk
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.

~~~
ma2rten
Reddie seems to approve of v4, but not v5.

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

~~~
ma2rten
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.

~~~
renewiltord
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.

------
smacktoward
_> 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 doubt, save yourself a headache and just use a different name.

~~~
simonh
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.

~~~
dheera
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?

~~~
yeldarb
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.

~~~
dheera
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.

------
boscon
Judging by the many tests, their yolov5 is worse than yolov4, so they should
call it yolov3.5

------
la_fayette
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...

------
bufferoverflow
There's no controversy.

------
rexreed
Thanks for the details in the benchmark!

------
milofeynman
Just rename it to something like ReYOLO or YOLOrobo and move on.

