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.
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.