If more high-value projects adopt the AGPL, legal departments may be motivated to revisit those bans.

I don't agree it is a problem with the companies. The issue most companies (and their lawyers) have is that this has not (afaik) really been tested in court. So, sure _you_ may state that we should be fine if are are not modifying the code or directly linking, etc, etc, but the interpretation of the license is still _very_ open. Until legal precedent is set, most companies are not willing to take the risk. And why should they?

Many companies (our included) consider AGPL to be a poison pill. and until someone gets sued and the courts set precedent...

> This is not a problem with the license, it's a problem with those companies. But it's still going to be a pain for the people who work there.

This sounds like a general problem, unrelated to licensing. If you work in companies with shitty policies, you are in for a world of pain.

Most companies who publish AGPL software also offer a paid commercial license, so it is accept AGPL (and contribute in kind) or pay (and contribute in money).

I don't think this is bad forcing companies to choose between these two (or abandon the software), and they are fully responsible to making lives of people who work there easier.

Or for people who work at companies that have those companies as close clients.

Indeed. I predict that year 2022 will be the year of a sidecar protocol proxy service.