"This cookbook is to be read by your personal chef only; if you read it and understand it yourself, you're breaking the book's license agreement."
If you pay for some string of bits, you have a right to look at them. Period.
I understand the risks of eating in places with closed kitchens, but ultimately they make better food than I can, that requires less of my time. It may be more expensive for unjustifiable reasons, and maybe I don't want to know how the black pudding is made, I just want to focus on what is important to me: making my wife happy.
Do I prefer to eat in restaurants with open kitchens, where the ingredient list and their source is available on demand? Sure. Am I a zealot about it..? It depends how hungry I am.
I don't see it that way.
The kitchen is like a development area. By looking at just the program code (not source or anything), I'm not stepping into Oracle's engineering labs or "cubicle land"---their kitchen, so to speak. I'm rather doing the equivalent of cutting into the meat pie on my plate and guessing the ingredients.
If I figure out what is in it and how it was prepared, I'm free to make that at home, or even serve it to the public in my own restaurant.
"Do not reverse engineer" is like "eat this meat loaf with your eyes closed, and do not share any hypotheses about what is in it or how it was made with anyone else".
> open kitchens, where the ingredient list and their source is available on demand?
That sounds like an analogy to open source, which is a different topic from license agreements in proprietary software against reverse engineering.
I'm saying that if you sell me some writing, I have a right to read it. Just because that writing was written for an ARM CPU doesn't mean I'm doing anything wrong by reading it anyway.
If you don't want people to know how a piece of language is interpreted to evoke its meaning, then don't sell it. Use it in-house or run it on a server and have clients to connect to it.