I recently learned that one of the apps on my smartphone is using the Apache 2.0 license, but when reading the in-App EULA i found a "rights of use" section, which severely limits the usage and distribution rights.
Here are some snippets of that EULA:
You are hereby granted a limited, non-exclusive, non-transferable and revocable licence, which may not be sub-licensed, to use the App for your own personal, non-commercial purposes.
You may make copies of the App for backup purposes. You are not granted any further rights to the App.
The App’s source code is published under the terms of the “Apache 2.0 License”
You may not manipulate or change the App.
The licence terms which apply to the App’s source code as well as to third-party components contained in the App are not affected by the granting of rights under this Section.
IMHO, it's pretty obvious that the EULA contradicts the actual license of the repository.
I don't actually intend to distribute, modify or even read the source code of that app, but what if i did? Which terms would actually apply in a case like that? The repository license or the EULA?
For example: does the user get a
perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable license (Apache 2.0), or do they get a
limited, non-exclusive, non-transferable, revocable, non-commercial license (EULA)?