[Wikipedia-l] no need to remove the article nor the chapter

[Jean-Baptiste Soufron]

> Your POV sounds too paranoid to be credible.  You seem to ignore the 
> fact that it's the way the ideas are expressed that is copyright not 
> the ideas themselves.

Of course, I don't want to deny the fact that people can claim another 
interpretation of the copyright law and try to argue that additions are 
derivative works. But that's just as like going to the police and 
trying to convince them that the house of my neighbour is my house.

>  It's quite clear that as an initially copyvio passage is more 
> frequently edited its resemblance to that text changes, and the degree 
> of copyright violation diminishes.

That's not the trick.

Additions are original works and the good way to do is to go back to 
the sane situation, to erase the copyvio text and to re-add everything 
that is not directly based on it.