Sure they do, if they choose to only use binaries provided by those that also provide source code. Which is their choice.
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.
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.
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 users only want binaries that guarantee they have source, they can insist on only downloading/acquiring binaries from people that guarantee they provide source.
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?