I think.. at this point.. its would be best for all of us if Canonical would take the time to schedule a meeting with the FSF to further clarify any remaining liability concerns that is not addressed in the FSF statement to their satifaction.
I think the FSF has done all that can be reasonably expected to clear up any misconceptions in the public statements from Canonical so far. Now the ball is pretty much in Canonical's court. If they or their partners still have lingering concerns they really need to reach out and engage the FSF in a dialogue, even at this late date in their decision making process. And then the FSF can follow-up on that discussion with an addendum to their advice statement to further clarify their public advice statement.
Anything else the rest of us want to talk about is basically just navel gazing for no real benefit. The FSF has addressed the publicly stated concern from Canonical in full. If Canonical or their partners have yet more concerns they have not made public, then they need to either have a private conversation with the FSF about them, or make the concerns public so the FSF can address them for the benefit for other distributors as well. Benefit of the doubt only gets you so far. At some point you actually need to sit down with the other party and have a discussion. The FSF has opened the door, Canonical just needs to task someone to walk through it.