It's not uncommon for licenses to try to assert overbroad conditions, just as a discouragement and also a way to ensure that even if they are not relevant in so

It's not uncommon for licenses to try to assert overbroad conditions, just as a discouragement and also a way to ensure that even if they are not relevant in some jurisdictions, they stick elsewhere, and the license you quote is a good example of that. A license or a contract saying something does not make it true (especially so in civil law jurisdictions - I've seen contracts and terms&conditions where the majority of clauses are absolutely void because they contradict relevant law), and of course the validity of the contract also is relevant (e.g. while in USA shrink-wrap licenses may be considered valid contracts, in much of the world they are not binding). It does not prohibit decompilation, although it tries to do that. All it says it that the licensor does not grant me the right to decompile or disassemble the Software. It does give a nod to "except and only to the extent expressly permitted by applicable law" which is the key part (and would be valid even if they did not say it), because the applicable law (at least for me) does grant me the right to decompile and disassemble the software for various purposes without the permission of the copyright owner, i.e. this license does not actually prohibit decompilation, no matter what it says. The same applies for language model training.