[nunobrito]

Always consult a lawyer with experience on these matters, interpretation of open source licenses is different in different jurisdictions.

In countries based on roman law (non-US, non-UK, non-Commonwealth):

When the code is on github marked as under the Apache-2.0 license by the copyright holder, then it is reasonable to assume that the Apache-2.0 license is applicable for your usage of that source code.

The compiled binaries are a different matter, especially when provided by the copyright holder themselves since they have the legal power to decide on different licenses for the same code.

So in principle a fork is legally possible with the intention of removing the EULA message. In case the copyright holders complain about such action, then the code should not be considered Apache-2.0 as advertised and such entities can be accused of fraud.

[kblev]

Thanks a lot for taking the time to respond. This is how I interpreted the situation as well.

What complicates matters is that the product name is a registered trademark, and the holding company also has patented the tool. I raised these concerns with my management but they still want to proceed, so I saved well the written confirmation. We'll be using the tool internally, no plans to sell it.

[nunobrito]

OK, that is not a problem in EU where software are 99,99% impossible to register.

Anyways, a patent applies to an invention. A nag screen would not arguably be the object of the patents for that tool since it wouldn't be their own distinct invention. You can only patent novelties.

You've done well.