Which is what GPL guarantees, binaries which is guaranteed to provide source code.

Which is why developers who wants to guarantee this right to end users for the code they release, choose to licence their code under GPL.

Only copyleft style licences guarantees this right to end users, so if you are a developer who wants your users to have this right secured (which has a practical benefit for developers as they as end users of modifications to their original code, are guaranteed the source code of those moddifications), you will use copyleft style licencing.

> Only copyleft style licences guarantees this right to end users ...

That's just blatantly false. Distribute your binaries with source. Or distribute them with an offer of source.

There, problem solved. Heck, may your binaries non-redistributable without source.

Either way, users have the option of using/distributing your binaries, or not. You've given them nothing they didn't already have.

>That's just blatantly false. Distribute your binaries with source.

No it's not, do you know what a 'guarantee' is? Unless the code in question comes with that as a _condition_ there is no _guarantee_.

If you guarantee that your binary has source, it has source. Guaranteed.

If users only want binaries that guarantee they have source, they can insist on only downloading/acquiring binaries from people that guarantee they provide source.

If you as a developer want to ensure that users of your code or modifications thereof will have access to that source code (end user which often includes the original developer himself) permissive licences does NOT _guarantee_ that.

Only way to guarantee that is to make it a condition for using the code in question, which is exactly what GPL does.

Do we really need to continue this dance of yours?