Hector Martin on Nostr: You're mixing things up really badly there. Article 3 is *only* a requirement that if ...

You're mixing things up really badly there. Article 3 is *only* a requirement that if you distribute a binary, you also distribute source. It is *not* a requirement that source be publicly available, e.g. you can just directly distribute source privately and not have it public. It also does nothing to disclaim anything in Article 5 or require the existence of a source code offer mechanism a la AGPL (which would serve, if functional, to implement Article 5 for the user).

Article 5 puts all the onus of source offer in a SaaS setting on the user. It doesn't matter if they've modified anything or not. If the software itself isn't self-offering up an accurate copy of its own source code, the user has to make sure they do that themselves. And as a restriction on usage, that's an EULA now.