Is the OpenG Suite Still Maintained?

[seekingInsight_ThankYou]

Is the OpenG Suite (distribution of open source LabVIEW VIs and application) still maintained at the following?:
1. https://github.com/Open-G
2. https://www.ni.com/en/support/downloads/tools-network/download.openg-libraries-for-labview.html#379041

I am not seeking if it's supported or if there's guarantee of future maintenance. I am seeking as of this point in time, is the OpenG software maintained, such as if there was a vulnerability documented, specifically a CVE, this project would patch it or release a message denoting they're not going to patch it (the why or why not is not important per this yes it is maintained or no it is not maintained per URL above for the purpose of this question - understood if it depends on the component).

Thank you for your time and for creating these tools.

[hooovahh]

Individuals still are interested in maintaining the OpenG packages.  They have been copied a few times, and several repos are on github.  I think the most up to date ones will be from here.  They look like they were last updated around 2 years ago.  VIPM.IO hosts the packages, and you can make comments, and feature suggestions there.

[Rolf Kalbermatter]

I'm actually maintaining the LabVIEW ZIP library in this repository: https://github.com/Open-G

The other projects in there are not active as far as I can see.

After Sourceforge more or less succumbed to the Gods of advertisement under Slashdot ownership, the OpenG project on there was relocated to different repositories by different people. I happened getting involved by the person who did the OpenG Github repository and relocated my own copy of the LabVIEW ZIP library in my Github repository to that location. But the OpenG Github repository does not seem to have any other activity unfortunately.

The package for the library is however posted to vipm.io on each release.

I would not be opposed to spend some time on real bug fixes for other libraries but don't see much beef in adding new features to them. So far they work still surprisingly well for me after more than 20 years of existence with very little trouble. The most serious is probably the missing support for Maps and Sets in the Variant Data Library, but that is something I haven't really needed until yet.

Edited 3 hours ago by Rolf Kalbermatter

[ShaunR]

54 minutes ago, Rolf Kalbermatter said:

I'm actually maintaining the LabVIEW ZIP library in this repository: https://github.com/Open-G

The other projects in there are not active as far as I can see.

After Sourceforge more or less succumbed to the Gods of advertisement under Slashdot ownership, the OpenG project on there was relocated to different repositories by different people. I happened getting involved by the person who did the OpenG Github repository and relocated my own copy of the LabVIEW ZIP library in my Github repository to that location. But the OpenG Github repository does not seem to have any other activity unfortunately.

The package for the library is however posted to vipm.io on each release.

I would not be opposed to spend some time on real bug fixes for other libraries but don't see much beef in adding new features to them. So far they work still surprisingly well for me after more than 20 years of existence with very little trouble. The most serious is probably the missing support for Maps and Sets in the Variant Data Library, but that is something I haven't really needed until yet.

I think the main issue (and probably the reason for the question originally) is the Cyber Resilience Act which basically makes everybody legally responsible for software they use. There are carve-outs for opensource but the only real way forward is through what they call "Software Stewards". I wouldn't stick your head above the parapet for OpenG. The next question will be "where's the SBOM and CVD Policy"  The way forward would be for NI or JKI to name themselves as "Software Stewards" for OpenG but it's a big ask for American companies.

[Rolf Kalbermatter]

30 minutes ago, ShaunR said:

I think the main issue (and probably the reason for the question originally) is the Cyber Resilience Act which basically makes everybody legally responsible for software they use. There are carve-outs for opensource but the only real way forward is through what they call "Software Stewards". I wouldn't stick your head above the parapet for OpenG. The next question will be "where's the SBOM and CVD Policy"  The way forward would be for NI or JKI to name themselves as "Software Stewards" for OpenG but it's a big ask for American companies.

Ohh well, I guess I will post all releases from now on with a disclaimer: Use at your own risk! 😁

"But nobody will be using them anymore after that!"

Maybe, but it's not like a huge difference. The feedback one received in the past was virtually zero anyways, so not sure there were many people using it at all. 🙃

[ShaunR]

42 minutes ago, Rolf Kalbermatter said:

The feedback one received in the past was virtually zero anyways

I see that as a testament to quality. No contact, no bugs.

[Phillip Brooks]

xkcd: Dependency

 

Edited 30 minutes ago by Phillip Brooks