So I'm curious... what part of "sincerely apologize with regards to calling out the fibbing" are you not understanding? It seems pretty clear to me, but if I need to use smaller words, I'll be glad to, just let me know which part you're having trouble with.
But just in case, let me be clear: I do sincerely apologize for saying that he fibbed about his work on Linux. I do not, however, apologize for explaining to him exactly how he is wrong. I fully acknowledge his contributions and experience, but that doesn't make him omnipotent and he is patently and 100% incorrect in his assumptions about the legality of the GPL. If for NO other reason than it's never been properly tested in court. But to go further, in my opinion, and you can assign whatever weight you want to that, it will not stand as written if and when it ever is properly challenged in court. I say this not because of any particular flaw in GPLv3, but because I know how difficult it will be to make a SoC judge understand the nuances therein, never mind a jury. I predict that at such time the GPL actually does end up in court in a proper case, we'll see lots of bad case law come out of it long before we get anything good, if that ever even happens. Chances are, bad case law will be set and the GPL will be rewritten (v4, etc...) to correct for the design flaws in v3 and we will start the whole process over again.
I see people like him in my office all the time and in their heart of hearts they believe what they are saying is correct. But the US justice system, just like the Universe, doesn't care what you believe. It simply does what it does and no amount of wishful thinking is going to change it.