Originally (correct me if I'm wrong) his point was to say "Be aware of what you're doing, if you're thinking of handing out binaries to people. Because..." <stuff that's already been said too much for me to want to repeat it, again.>
The whole sue thing got brought up in the way that all stupid things get brought up on forums, because someone derailed the thread. Shadow's later points were born of a desire to correct a perceived misconception, or blatant ignorance... much in the same way I get a facial tick and a strong urge to beat people with an obnoxiously heavy book on English grammar when they cock up the use of an apostrophe, or get they're, their, and there mixed up.
Of course, I could be wrong about this so feel free to correct anything I've said if you think I missed the point somewhere. But overall, I think that's how it happened.
I think Shadow was making a valid point originally, and just trying to highlight a potential issue with a plan of action being discussed. I think most people who are in a position to move forward with that plan of action wouldn't have cared even if someone did throw a fit over having the binary without the source, though, or at least they would have cared no more about that scenario as they do about whether or not the source comes under this or that license (which from what I can tell, ethics aside, doesn't appear to be very much at all really.) So perhaps the point was somewhat moot. In any event, I think he just got tangled up in some trolling after that, but couldn't let it lie because the misconceptions over how copywright law works is a pet-peeve. Or something like that.
Hope this helps to clear some things up.