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