Linux usually gets a pass, because most times you're just deploying it and not mucking with source code.
But a lot of places (I've worked at more that do than don't) will have rules about GPL/AGPL for libraries/infra as a whole though. Often evaluated case-by-case, but it's rare I've seen a AGPL stuff get approved for usage.
I think some of it is not wanting to deal with the cost of vigilance; i.e. you can make sure that someone is using %thing% in a way that doesn't run afoul of AGPL right now, but does legal and upper management have confidence in that being true forever and always? Engineers are still human, and corporate management + legal teams tend to hate licensing folk tromping around.
This results in refusals ranging from "This is internal for now but we will open it up later" (a fair concern) to "Somebody is worried that exposing it over the VPN to contractors would count as making it public" (IDK, I'm not a lawyer.)
> Linux usually gets a pass, because most times you're just deploying it and not mucking with source code.
That would apply for most uses of software, wouldn't it?
> This results in refusals ranging from "This is internal for now but we will open it up later" (a fair concern) to "Somebody is worried that exposing it over the VPN to contractors would count as making it public" (IDK, I'm not a lawyer.)
I've encountered variations of this problem at places I have worked in. Education goes a long way to solving this, and this example of simple usage of (A)GPL software is easy enough to explain with examples.
