Buy once, use forever A directory of one-time purchase software

Serious question, because I'm not sure how I feel about it... should software with a server-side component that needs to keep working be counted as "buy once"? We've seen so many cases of companies going out of business or just deciding that it's no longer worth running these services, and leaving customers with no recourse.

An example from this list: LocalCan – https://buyoncesoftware.com/localcan – there's a server-side component (which is why ngrok its competitor is subscription based). If this component disappears the app ceases to function.

The flip side to this is that just because an app is entirely local doesn't mean it will work as the software around it gets updated (OSes etc), so if a company decides to stop supporting it, that too is useless in a way. It's not the same because running it on the machine you had when you bought it would still work, but that's not how we use computers in practice. Perhaps this is a different case because many of these "buy once" would charge for a major update like that anyway.

> The flip side to this is that just because an app is entirely local doesn't mean it will work as the software around it gets updated (OSes etc), so if a company decides to stop supporting it, that too is useless in a way.

This used to be less of a problem, when OS vendors gave more of a shit about backward compatibility. But still, even today, this doesn't seem like a major risk. OS platforms really don't change that fast. I would expect a Linux, Mac or Windows app purchased today to actually work unpatched (on a computer with the same CPU architecture) for 10, maybe 20 years. I mean, we have games from the 90s that still can be made to work on a modern Windows machine.

The most recent OS-driven rug-pull that broke software that I remember is Apple removing support for 32-bit apps. Which yes was a dick move.

The web as a platform is a different story. Browser APIs are all over the place and things get broken constantly. I honestly would not be willing to pay for a browser-based software, full stop. I just feel like web developers in general are way less serious about forward and backward compatibility, and making sure their software works on a browser that isn't "Bleeding Edge Chrome".