Whoah... awesome history. I tend to agree with you too. Ultimately, we're constrained by the tools we use, "the tools that people 'think' are best for us." Opensource is not _as_ constrained by the organisational strutures that tend to result from the use of these tools. Hence creativity and exploration thrive. It's like everything, you can't repress the underground music cultures because 'Punk' will become popular. You can't start 'a war based on lies' beacuse 'the people' will revolt (unless you keep them ignorant, ba-doom-ching!
You can't restrict software development to a single development environment because creativity and innovation are stifled
You can't fertilise your crops because the soil becomes less fertile, more quickly.
What we (usually unknowingly) aim for is some sort of balance.
Anyway, to add to what I meant about Apple not killing HC:
While the design of Mac OS X has similarities to the hypercard design, many well designed systems will often have similarities between their architectures. So saying that the Mac OS X frameworks is _based_ on the Hypercard framework is like saying there's similarities between the molecular designs of a tree and a flower. The fundamental patterns (atoms) exist in both, but they get implemented (into molecules) in very different ways.
To see patterns in different things, we just have to get the granularities of our observations close to matching each other. A hard thing to do when the contexts (or artefacts) are very different.
And I definately, now that you mention it, see the NextStep roots. :)