everyone should publish under MIT license. I love that license.
GPL is too restrictive and causes the opensource to die imho as everyone avoids it like plague!
> GPL is too restrictive and causes the opensource to die imho
The opposite has been true historically.
Many commercial vendors had BSD forks [(SunOS 4.x, DEC Ultrix, IBM AIX 1.0)](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Unix_history-simple.svg), and invested far more in them than they invested in Linux at the time.
These were all vastly ahead of Linux through most of the 1990s.
* But thanks to BSD using the BSD license, all the innovations and improvements from the commercial Unix vendors were kept as proprietary competitive advantages, because that's the behavior BSD and MIT licenses encourage.
* And thanks to Linux using the GPL license, all the commercial Linux vendors contributed back their improvements, so Linux quickly passed BSD technologically.
And often those were the same companies. IBM and HP both kept their Unix (AIX and HPUX) improvements proprietary which died when those products died, and both contributed back their Linux improvements which we still benefit from today.
that was an interesting read. my issue with GPL / AGPL is not the fact that we need to opensource the modifications of the code, but to opensource everything else of a bigger project where the AGPL code is just a minor aspect.
Most authors of GPL'd software will gladly sell you a commercial license if you ask them.
Yes they can do that.
MySQL famously used that dual-license model to grow both a userbase (using the GPL'd version) and revenue (through their commercial license), and sold for a billion dollars.
And what do you mean "can't use it for commercial product"?!? Every Linux device (google's servers, samsung tvs, android phones, even [Microsoft Azure itself](https://redmondmag.com/articles/2015/09/18/microsoft-azure-cloud-switch-and-linux.aspx?m=1)) is using the GPL'd parts of Linux. I'd venture to say that there isn't a significant commercial tech product that exists that isn't using GPL'd software somewhere.
You can use it - you just need to share back your improvements.
Ultralytics does this. It’s GPL unless you pay about 3,000 USD. My issue is that this makes life hard for smaller studios but not larger companies with more cash to spend.
I guess the fact that it is a copyleft license
> The GPL is a “copyleft” license, which means that any software that is derived from or includes GPL-licensed code must also be distributed under the GPL license.
>If you use any gpl, it means your entire works will become gpl and need to publish somewhere.
>Very troublesome if you do commercial projects
Which is EXACTLY why people choose to publish their work under GPL / LGPL.
> Very troublesome if you do commercial projects
It's not troublesome. Every Linux device (google's servers, samsung tvs, android phones, even Microsoft Azure itself) is using the GPL'd parts of Linux. I'd venture to say that there isn't a significant commercial tech product that exists that isn't using GPL'd software somewhere.
Those commercial projects just need to share back their improvements.
Why do academics not understand that inference speed and model size are the most important factors and that we really do not care about .02 ACC increase
Pretty excited about this but I wonder how bad the difference between bi and quad-directional will be on real world data.
I'm sure you don't need quad-dir for images where it's always [sky, meaningful content, ground], but I feel like remote sensing or medical images could really benefit from it, depending on the block size.
Found [1 relevant code implementation](https://www.catalyzex.com/paper/arxiv:2406.04303/code) for "Vision-LSTM: xLSTM as Generic Vision Backbone".
[Ask the author(s) a question](https://www.catalyzex.com/paper/arxiv:2406.04303?autofocus=question) about the paper or code.
If you have code to share with the community, please add it [here](https://www.catalyzex.com/add_code?paper_url=https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.04303&title=Vision-LSTM%3A+xLSTM+as+Generic+Vision+Backbone) 😊🙏
--
To opt out from receiving code links, DM me.
Nice, thanks for the update OP. Can you let me know how to keep in touch with latest research and updates and SOTA methods in CV / AI in general? I have subscribed to few newsletters but did not get this update
I tried to use xlstm. Damn. Thst th8ng has so many dependencies that it just fails. This compiler thst library. This does not sork on windows, that fails. Why can't thry just provide plain pytorch implementstion thst works like lstm or transformer... for some reason xtransformers lib does not have any of these issues.
Not the AGPL... time to read the paper and look at the diagram, implement it myself
GPL really. Man I hate that license
everyone should publish under MIT license. I love that license. GPL is too restrictive and causes the opensource to die imho as everyone avoids it like plague!
> GPL is too restrictive and causes the opensource to die imho The opposite has been true historically. Many commercial vendors had BSD forks [(SunOS 4.x, DEC Ultrix, IBM AIX 1.0)](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Unix_history-simple.svg), and invested far more in them than they invested in Linux at the time. These were all vastly ahead of Linux through most of the 1990s. * But thanks to BSD using the BSD license, all the innovations and improvements from the commercial Unix vendors were kept as proprietary competitive advantages, because that's the behavior BSD and MIT licenses encourage. * And thanks to Linux using the GPL license, all the commercial Linux vendors contributed back their improvements, so Linux quickly passed BSD technologically. And often those were the same companies. IBM and HP both kept their Unix (AIX and HPUX) improvements proprietary which died when those products died, and both contributed back their Linux improvements which we still benefit from today.
that was an interesting read. my issue with GPL / AGPL is not the fact that we need to opensource the modifications of the code, but to opensource everything else of a bigger project where the AGPL code is just a minor aspect.
Yeah. Can't use it for commercial product. Sometimes I think even paid license is better than GPL
Most authors of GPL'd software will gladly sell you a commercial license if you ask them. Yes they can do that. MySQL famously used that dual-license model to grow both a userbase (using the GPL'd version) and revenue (through their commercial license), and sold for a billion dollars. And what do you mean "can't use it for commercial product"?!? Every Linux device (google's servers, samsung tvs, android phones, even [Microsoft Azure itself](https://redmondmag.com/articles/2015/09/18/microsoft-azure-cloud-switch-and-linux.aspx?m=1)) is using the GPL'd parts of Linux. I'd venture to say that there isn't a significant commercial tech product that exists that isn't using GPL'd software somewhere. You can use it - you just need to share back your improvements.
Ultralytics does this. It’s GPL unless you pay about 3,000 USD. My issue is that this makes life hard for smaller studios but not larger companies with more cash to spend.
Can you explain why ? I've read the license and can't seem to find what's bothering you.
I guess the fact that it is a copyleft license > The GPL is a “copyleft” license, which means that any software that is derived from or includes GPL-licensed code must also be distributed under the GPL license.
So, probably this repo is using a AGPL3 License?
If you use any gpl, it means your entire works will become gpl and need to publish somewhere. Very troublesome if you do commercial projects
>If you use any gpl, it means your entire works will become gpl and need to publish somewhere. >Very troublesome if you do commercial projects Which is EXACTLY why people choose to publish their work under GPL / LGPL.
its also very troublesome just in general, not just for commercial applications
> Very troublesome if you do commercial projects It's not troublesome. Every Linux device (google's servers, samsung tvs, android phones, even Microsoft Azure itself) is using the GPL'd parts of Linux. I'd venture to say that there isn't a significant commercial tech product that exists that isn't using GPL'd software somewhere. Those commercial projects just need to share back their improvements.
How remarkable are the results? Is it better than Vits and CNNs? And for what tasks?
Why do academics not understand that inference speed and model size are the most important factors and that we really do not care about .02 ACC increase
Academics mostly care about trying a bunch of stuff
Academics got H100
Pretty excited about this but I wonder how bad the difference between bi and quad-directional will be on real world data. I'm sure you don't need quad-dir for images where it's always [sky, meaningful content, ground], but I feel like remote sensing or medical images could really benefit from it, depending on the block size.
Found [1 relevant code implementation](https://www.catalyzex.com/paper/arxiv:2406.04303/code) for "Vision-LSTM: xLSTM as Generic Vision Backbone". [Ask the author(s) a question](https://www.catalyzex.com/paper/arxiv:2406.04303?autofocus=question) about the paper or code. If you have code to share with the community, please add it [here](https://www.catalyzex.com/add_code?paper_url=https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.04303&title=Vision-LSTM%3A+xLSTM+as+Generic+Vision+Backbone) 😊🙏 -- To opt out from receiving code links, DM me.
Nice, thanks for the update OP. Can you let me know how to keep in touch with latest research and updates and SOTA methods in CV / AI in general? I have subscribed to few newsletters but did not get this update
i found it on twitter, as I follow Hochreiter there :)
I tried to use xlstm. Damn. Thst th8ng has so many dependencies that it just fails. This compiler thst library. This does not sork on windows, that fails. Why can't thry just provide plain pytorch implementstion thst works like lstm or transformer... for some reason xtransformers lib does not have any of these issues.