[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.

[voqv]

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

[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?

[renewiltord]

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.

[CJefferson]

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.

[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.

[paulryanrogers]

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

[Others]

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!

[rossjudson]

> 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. ;)

[heyitsguay]

YOLOv5 wasn't a Roboflow project, they just provided an implementation and used the name that the project creator used.

[kbenson]

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.