Might as well not be for many companies; I know many who are not allowed to even glance at AGPL code for fear of getting infected (and sued).

There's an easy way to avoid being sued though: comply with AGPL and make your own work open-source as well.

The “problem” with AGPL is companies who want to use open source software to build proprietary stuff on top without contributing anything back. AGPL is purposely designed to avoid this kind of parasitic behavior, but that doesn't make it “not open source” quite the opposite: it's “forced open-source”.

It is indeed restricting companies' freedom though: their freedom to restrict their user's freedom.

Sure and I am all for it; I am just saying what my clients say to us. So for them (and it’s most of them, even if they never have any intention of changing the source code, ever), if it’s this license, they won’t touch it. That’s coming from their lawyers, no matter what we/I say.

Sure, but this has nothing to do with AGPL not being “open-source”.

Indeed, but I said ‘might as well not be’ which is not saying it’s not; it’s that companies treat it as not having access to the source.

That's a them problem. AGPL is clearly open source.

Sure, but that doesn’t change the reality. I would say ‘their loss’, but I think it’s more nuanced than that.