During the session on collaboration between Digital Humanities centers at Digital Humanities 2007, Julia Flanders made some remarks that got me thinking about software tools and publication. Her remarks revolved in part around the possibility of such a collaboration providing peer review services, and also around the way in which our community tends to be good at building prototypes, but less good at producing finished software. One of the motivating forces behind this habit is the academic culture of publication. It’s a regrettable fact that tool-building in the humanities does not get the same credit as publishing. In the EpiDoc project, we’ve made an effort to be sure to cite software tools we’ve built as publications, which is what they are. The new Digital Humanities Quarterly is in a position to publish peer-reviewed articles that do not fit the traditional definition of article (e.g. multimedia presentations). What obstacle would there be to publishing peer-reviewed, Open Source software source code in a journal like DHQ? Obviously software doesn’t follow the same rhythms as print publishing, but why couldn’t a 1.0 release be termed a publication? Is a good software tool not the moral equivalent of an article or even a book? Or am I just a heretic?