I think they're suggesting that the statically-linked version of the binary might have ended up published as a release to the public Internet. At which point, it's unclear whether it's possible to "undo" the copyleft infection simply by "unpublishing" the release. People have already potentially downloaded the "infected" release.
Once you are in violation, you have two ways to fix it: stop publishing the software with the violation (and, optionally, publish a version without the violation instead) or give access to the source code. The main problem with accidental violation is that, with GPLv2, you need to have an agreement with the copyright holder to unterminate your license. With GPLv3, you have a grace period and major copyright holders (like Redhat) told they would also use a grace period for GPLv2.
Then, to get compliance, you just have to fix the linker flag. Providing the source code is not the only way to get compliance.