Cacharoth has it correct.
My response was in three parts, part one only refers to those items which
*solely* have an online life and no offline life whatsoever. That first part
is what a few people have objected to, but they objected to something which
I did not say.
Let's say that someone decides to make money by createing an online
magazine, which has no print version. No hard version, no free library
subscription, no group subscription for left-handed lesbians in Botswana, whatever.
That the *sole* way to view the item, for anyone, is to pay for it, to the
publisher. That is no version in a bookstore, no version in a library, no
version at a newstand,etc.
If the sole way to view the source is to pay the publisher and view it
online ( this entire phrase must be read as one statement) then I would object
to it.
The reason for my objection, is that we, our project, should not put
ourselves into a position where we are becoming the main source of financial
support for some newly-created effective auxiliary. I hope we can all see, how
some obscure online subscription mag like "Pokeman Today" would get a
tremendous boost just by being sourced to one of our articles. It's free
advertising, and once we let a thing like that occur, it would be more difficult to
stop it from proliferating acrost the entire project.
Like I stated, if someone can come with an example of something they think
I'd object to, then bring it forward. Then perhaps you will find that I
don't object to your example. I am all-for creating convenience links to
online sources, in those cases where the same thing exists in an off-line format
as well, and where the citation is clear enough that a person could actually
find the off-line format without the need to view the online one first.
Will Johnson
