I think you'll find few people who are willing to make changes to those things just to implement an AGPL library --- and even fewer who would call it a "simple solution".
I don't disagree with that. My point is that historically, it's been their choice and as a result it's been mostly their loss. When there is will to use the software, but they refuse to take the time to understand the licensing or dismiss it as not being simple enough, the other corporate entities behind it will gladly overcharge them for some kind of proprietary license or legal consultancy scheme.
Proprietary licenses aren't the only alternative to the risk of the AGPL (whether real or perceived). For example: I've never heard of a corporate lawyer having finding issue with an MIT or Apache license.
I've run into lots of libraries over my career with vague, conflicting, or otherwise questionable licenses. So far, 100% of the time I've been able to easily find an alternative open source project with a better, more clear, license. If both get the job done, I'll pick the one that doesn't keep me up at night every time.
