I think partially that's caused by convoluted and imprecise language in the AGPL. E.g what clause 13) means for something like a database product is pretty much unclear.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html :
> 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. This Corresponding Source shall include the Corresponding Source for any work covered by version 3 of the GNU General Public License that is incorporated pursuant to the following paragraph.
I've read the AGPL license. I disagree with your interpretation.
> The RethinkDB server is licensed under the GNU Affero General Public License v3.0. The client drivers are licensed under the Apache License v2.0.
> We chose to release the client drivers under the Apache License v2.0 to remove any ambiguity as to the extent of the server license. You do not have to license any software that uses RethinkDB under AGPL, and are free to use any licensing mechanism of your choice.
You've probably heard that the difference between the GPL and the AGPL is whether they apply to access over a network or not; but you seem to have misinterpreted how that works. The GPL says that if you modify GPL-licensed software and distribute compiled binaries to users, you must also distribute the source code under the GPL. The AGPL says the same thing as the GPL, except that making the modified software available over the network is treated the same as distributing the modified software as a compiled binary.