As far as copyright law is concerned, source code and object code (i.e. the compiled program) are equivalent. So even if a license talks about one and not the other, or only mentions "software", the same protections apply to both.
Often the license will mention both. For example, GPL has sections defining "source code" and "object code", because one of its conditions is that if you distribute "object code" you must also provide "source code" - a mechanism that's an integral part of copyleft.
The conclusion that source code and object code are equivalent is not that obvious. In fact object code was once not afforded copyright protection1, but cases such as Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp. lead to the situation today.
1: Computer Copyright Law: An Emerging Form of
Protection for Object Code Software After Apple v.
Franklin, 5 Computer L.J. 233 (1984) by Anderson L. Baldy III
While source code programs 10 have
consistently been accorded copyright protection, object code programs
1 have only recently been deemed copyrightable. 12 Further,
the exact boundaries of the protection granted to object code programs
as an alternate or supplement to trade secret protection 13 have not been delineated by the federal judiciary. 14 The recent decision
in Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp.15 merely
provides that some object code is copyrightable subject matter regardless
of its embodiment medium, in that case Read Only Memory
(ROM) chips. Thus, Apple stands for the proposition that the embodiment
of object code in a ROM does not preclude copyright protection,
but does not provide guidelines for determining what
constitutes a copyrightable ROM-embedded program.