> Released code can't not be open source anymore...
It can be. You can release under a "source available" license barring it from being used (even compiled), derived, incorporated into other works, making it basically "for eyes only, or we sue you to oblivion".
Many people consider licenses as window decorations, but they are not.
Further distribution can be put under any license they want but any copy anyone received in the past that was Apache 2 licensed remains such and can be used as before.
So if anyone wants to put a past release online they are free to do so (unless there are parts of the code that were restricted before).
It would be prudent to remove branding where possible but that's mainly a precaution.
Yes you can't retroactively change licenses, but it's also important to know that just because you can read a source file, the file in question is bona-fide open source or free software.
Many people lack this knowledge from my experience.
Solely being able to view source code without other rights absolutely doesn’t make it open source. In general if something isn’t under an open source license it isn’t.
ADDED Unless it’s public domain and then it effectively is.
We had a Windows CE dev license back in the Cambrian Era which included visibility of the source tree, but God help you if you tried to change it and make your own build.
nope. If something in jurisdiction would make license invalid that would not mean you can do what you want with the code, that would mean that you can't use that license.
If a jurisdiction releases you but does not prevent you from performing an obligation, licences do not typically consider that a reason for invalidation of the licence.
It can be. You can release under a "source available" license barring it from being used (even compiled), derived, incorporated into other works, making it basically "for eyes only, or we sue you to oblivion".
Many people consider licenses as window decorations, but they are not.