AGPL prevents from wide product adoption, since corporate lawyers caution against relying on AGPL products because it is easy to violate the license terms and being sued after that.
It's not possible to sell non-FOSS modifications to AGPL-licensed software. I think that's intended. It's not antithetical to Open Source, quite the opposite in fact.
Yeah, but lawyers (and companies where these lawyers work) are afraid of licenses with unclear or vague terms such as GPL, LGPL, AGPL, BSL, etc. They prefer to deal with software licensed under clear and concise open-source licenses such as Apache2, MIT and BSD.
Companies care about open source if it helps them increasing their revenue:
- If they use open source code in their commercial products, then they care about the ability to freely use the code without legal consequences.
- If they develop open source product, then they care about increasing the adoption rate of the product.
In both cases truly open source licences such as Apache2, BSD and MIT, work the best. Copyleft licences with some arbitrary restrictions on code use prevent from wide adoption of the licensed project.
There is only a single well-known exception - Linux kernel with GPL v2 license. Commercial companies have to figure out how to use Linux kernel in their commercial products because there is no good alternative.
Maybe I should start insisting on the term "FOSS".
Pushover licenses ("truly open source") enable the exploitation of FOSS developers in the name of easy profit for the people building proprietary software around it, while Copyleft licenses ensure that this does not happen, granting each user the essential freedoms. The restrictions are not arbitrary, they exist precisely to ensure that these freedoms cannot be taken away from anyone. If this hinders widespread adoption by companies, it just means that those companies didn't plan on respecting the essential freedoms.
Freedom is the ability to use the open source code without any restrictions. Copyleft licences restrict the freedom. These licences sound good in theory (let's prevent from unpaid use of the code in proprietary products!), but they work not so good in practice (why bothering with legal headache related to copyleft-licensed code if it is easier to use BSD-licensed code?). This prevents from wide adoption of copyleft-licensed products.