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.

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.

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.

Wally from Dilbert suggests: To protect yourself, get the instructions from management in writing.

I would be very surprised if any manager was prepared to sign such a demand.

Not a lawyer but EULAs are generally unenforced. That is not to say they are unenforceable.

The thing about doing what you are doing. Some person down the road, maybe many years from now will have some sort of problem and not realize they lack a proper license. They will reach out to the vendor and start the lawsuit process.

From the vendor's point of view your corp will end up paying now or paying later.

From your corp's point of view. Lawyers are going to want to know everything. Your name will come up and it doesn't matter at all if you work there or not. You're going to be talking to lawyers. Worse yet, they wont care if you work there or not, they won't be on your side.

You certainly need to get it in writing.

You need to consult a lawyer who specialises in copyright law.

It doesn't sound like this software is really under Apache 2.0 as that is clearly not the intention of the author whether or not an Apache 2.0 license is attached. You can't get around that with some legal sophistry. It's not free software at all if it has restrictions on use since it doesn't have the "four freedoms" (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html).

Apache 2.0 also says that if you fork it, or use any bit of it, it is classified as a derivative works, and must retain the Apache license in the fork. So the answer is quite clearly no.

You could possibly modify the source and not accept the EULA but you still cannot remove the Apache license.

The question is about removing the EULA, not removing the Apache license.

If it matters, hire a lawyer.

If it doesn't matter, it doesn't matter.

Legality has nothing to do with it.

Anyone can sue anyone over anything.

Good luck.

So the binary has a EULA and the source code does not? What happens if you compile the binary yourself?