If he responds, it would be interesting to see if he tries to give examples. If there are any (and I doubt there are) they will be from the District of Colombia (DC likes to help the poor, especially in, say, landlord-tenant disputes, for instance), but they wouldn't be applicable to the Third Circuit where GRSecurity now resides, nor would they be applicable to middle-class programmers (who are not indigent), nor would they likely be applicable to plaintiffs bringing an action at all.
I was brainstorming the next step in bringing an action: one is supposed to think of all the little affirmative defenses an opponent might bring as-well as all the procedural hurdles they will place in your way.
Basically it seems that Bruce has publically libeled me in the worst way: questioning my professional abilities, and now since you investigated; we have evidence that he, indeed, did mean it the way we (and likely others on the debian user mailing list) took it.
I imagine that he would like to retract his article, since it was induced by a "fool", however if he were to do so that would impact his reputation, and, ofcourse, there would be a new slashdot, soylentnews, ycombinator (hacker news) story on the retraction.
I do not imagine, however, that he will pursue the GRSecurity case further. A "fool" used him as an implement and he would wish to go no further I would imagine.
Note: one can compare my write-ups on the GRSecurity situation and then his later article. You will see echos of my language. I certainly did.
Thanks for sending that mail. I would be interested to see if he responds again for a clarification.