Honest question: For the people not intending to "build a business on top of an open source library" but only intending to do something like "I just need this library to solve an issue in my work job" it's not simple to not touch it at all?
I had read a lot of conversations, and to be honest it's quite confusing for me the risk acceptance to have AGPL code in my codebase.
Most major tech companies will ban it for any use because the virality of it isn't clearly bounded and legally it's untested [1]. The stakes are high at large tech companies with valuable IP, so downside is huge. For whatever reason, AGPL has never laid exclusive claim to particularly valuable projects (even in this project's case, it seems like they dual license so you can avoid the AGPL), so the upside isn't that high. So high downside + low upside means major players will just err on the side of "no".
If your company has anything to lose, I'm sure it'll have a lawyer and you'll want to consult them on what their risk tolerance is. It's confusing because the license is actually ambiguous, most tech companies aren't willing to accept this ambiguity.
I had read a lot of conversations, and to be honest it's quite confusing for me the risk acceptance to have AGPL code in my codebase.