Sustainability in research software development and use has been paid a fair deal of attention to in recent years (cf. for instance Lamprecht et al. 2020, Hasselbring et al. 2020, Chue Hong et al. 2022, and various working and interest groups <ref xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" n="1" target="ftn1" /> and recommendations <ref xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" n="2" target="ftn2" />). Without doubt the gathering of best practices, adherence to and reflection on them leads to a more conscious handling of resources and potential sustainability risks. Approaches to score the sustainability state and potential of research software in the Digital Humanities (e.g. Henny-Krahmer/Stadler 2022; based on criteria from Anzt et al. 2022; software badges like OpenSSF <ref xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" n="3" target="ftn3" /> and fair-software <ref xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" n="4" target="ftn4" />) are useful to paint a picture of individual software products from the sustainability point of view. In practice, however, organizational, institutional, and personal circumstances directly or indirectly challenge theoretical best practices, so ways have to be found to deal with the existing restrictions.