It might be free software but for many people it'd conflict in practice with the OSD definition.
If you like Free Software in a Stallman sense, sure, but in these cases we shouldn't kid ourselves that they're doing it for altruistic reasons at all.
The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software.
I don't see the conflict there, in theory or in practise.
AGPLv3 and other GPL variants do not “place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with [them]”, there is no requirement or expectation that “all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source”. They at most insist that derived works (software that uses part of the code, by inclusion or linking) are covered by the license.
If you like Free Software in a Stallman sense, sure, but in these cases we shouldn't kid ourselves that they're doing it for altruistic reasons at all.
https://opensource.org/osd
9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software
The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software.