This is just a general issue with third party code - C/C++ libraries have always suffered from this weakness. Still, I've worked in places where if we were unable to distribute our library closed source the business wing wouldn't let us distribute it at all - everyone is welcome to their thoughts on copy-left software, but a thing that exists wouldn't have existed if we could only release it open-source (and yes, we even explained how licensing worked to the higher ups)
This is a compiler. The difference between distributing the output of this and a compiled C or C++ library is basically that this emits machine code that no sane C or C++ compiler would emit today. This does not prevent me from figuring out how the parts you want kept secret work, it only spreads bugs out over more code.
My objection is twofold: first, on practical grounds, this makes producing good bug reports harder. That's because there's more code to prove isn't the true source of the problematic behavior.
The second is aesthetic. If your goal is to keep your secrets, this does not accomplish it.
I do security for a living. Generally speaking, code that A) is obfuscated, B) is written in PHP, and C) I'm told won't have bugs... is exactly the code I'm probably going to need to file bugs against.
