AGPLv3 doesn't solve the problem of projects being used as components SaaS services, as far as I understand? So companies can still use the projects just fine without the need to contribute anything back.
edit: thanks to pydry for pointing out that this interpretation isn't correct. It is more correct to say that if a user interacts with AGPL software over the network, they have a right to its source.
https://medium.com/swlh/understanding-the-agpl-the-most-misu...
> 13. Remote Network Interaction; Use with the GNU General Public License.
> Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge, through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software.
I'm not a lawyer, but that's my interpretation of this section.
Reading it again, it was wrong of me to say that network communications count as linking, though. It's more correct to say that if a user interacts with AGPL software via network communication, then its source must be made available to them.
That's the policy. No exceptions. Don't touch any of it on a corp-issued device.