Google does not allow usage of AGPL code.
If you are on the other hand in a highly competitive market then re-implementing code and delaying launches can result in being replaced by some with more flexible approach. My go-to example is the gaming industry. As an example, if you have a webbased ticket system it might not matter much if there is a download button, and developer time is much better spent on finishing the actually game than writing one more ticket system.
Game studios in general seems to have very flexible approach to licenses. To my knowledge they will apply all methods if it means saving time, as long as they can keep the game itself proprietary and sell copies. They will any software directly if they can, buy if it makes economical sense, or even just ask the author for an exception (with attribution in the credits).
The latter makes sense. The former does not, as you can relicense any time you want.
It’s also why you shouldn’t sign a CLA if you disagree with that possibility.
Not that I sympathise with Google here, they can afford to give something back to FOSS (not just when it advances their agenda).
The goal of this license is to encourage more companies to contribute to open source, not to encourage usage.
The problem I have is that I think truly free software is relatively unsustainable. Look at Docker's financials after basically revolutionizing how software is distributed and deployed. Look at big projects like Kubernetes; do you think you would convince investors to fund a project with a pitch like "we're going to give it all away for free with no encumbrances". Nope. It only works when you already made money from writing proprietary software. The AGPL attempts to be a middle ground, which I do respect. I am personally afraid to touch it. So are many other people.
Its goal is not to help corporations, but to give end users freedom to control software they use.
No, this is wrong. The OSI has the AGPL in its list of approved licenses. https://opensource.org/licenses/AGPL-3.0
When discussing the goals behind AGPL, it definitely shouldn't be described as Open Source license (although it technically is one), but a Free Software one, since the whole difference between those two terms (highlighting the political issue as opposed to technical one) is actually relevant to the intention behind the license.
The goal behind licenses written by FSF is to ensure that distributors of your code do not restrict freedoms of the users that the license guarantees them. If you think it's about "encouraging more usage of open source", you clearly miss the point of copyleft licenses.
Maybe you modified it to use some new data source, and to display it for internal use. Say O365 as a custom data source. You aren't giving away any real secret sauce by sharing your modifications. Anything sensitive is probably the actual data, not the code.
The license warrants caution. But not an outright ban.
The problem with a policy of "AGPL is allowed sometimes but not others" is who makes the judgement call on when it is appropriate and when it isn't? Can you trust the engineer implementing/consuming the component – and the average engineer isn't very familiar with licensing issues – to make that judgement call, especially when there could be significant legal and financial risks of getting it wrong? Probably not. So then the policy has to be "you can use AGPL but you have to ask for approval".
But, that's not too different from an AGPL ban – most bans have a process to ask for an exception. And, in practice, it de facto amounts to a ban, because most people will probably decide to just use some non-AGPL alternative instead of asking for formal approval (which probably has to go via legal and relatively senior management).
Not sure where to find a good list of who allows what.