I believe this is the only rational explanation. The other, non-trademark-containing software, is distributed under a FOSS license (both the source and the bin

I believe this is the only rational explanation. The other, non-trademark-containing software, is distributed under a FOSS license (both the source and the binary derivative), and I don't see how anyone could be legally forced to rebuild the binary. The copyright situation is clear, the legal leg this is standing on seems to be the trademark situation.