A lot of companies I've worked for had a blanket ban on AGPL. 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.
I drove a revisiting like this in more than one organization.
Fitting decisions like this around the status quo makes no sense. It's exactly actions like this which change the status quo. I'm happy to say there are dozens of organizations without AGPL bans thanks to one useful piece of code I wrote. Most are small, but one is in the tens of billions of dollars in valuation.
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...
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.