> - Google internally knows they can comply with the AGPL without trouble
No, and I don't know where you got that. The article is talking about how start-ups can typically comply with AGPL without trouble. cic48 claims that all software running on Borg needs to be extensively modified and then can only be compiled using Google's proprietary tool-chain. If that's true, then they can't run AGPL on Borg without releasing the code for the tool-chain.
> - Has consciously chosen to write policies prohibiting it based on misleading reasons
No. Has written policies prohibiting it for rational self-interest (GPL, MIT, etc licenses allow them to sell access via the Internet without any cost to them, AGPL does not). After writing these policies, they've provided an alternative justification.
> - Google adheres to that policy
Outside of Google Legal, who would know whether or not they adhere to their own internal policies? If they used AGPL software internally, they would have no legal obligation to disclose that (because they'd be fully in compliance).
> - Most importantly: they are doing this because they believe that the influence this would have in discouraging use of the AGPL is valuable enough to substantially benefit Google
Why "substantially"? I would imagine the cost of saying "don't use AGPL" and then publishing an article about it was very low. A couple person-weeks of work at the most? It's hard to imagine what wouldn't be worth that investment.
But I think you didn't understand the article, because the main thrust of it was to encourage businesses to not be afraid of the AGPL, not to determine whether Google is acting maliciously or not.
> - Google internally knows they can comply with the AGPL without trouble
No, and I don't know where you got that. The article is talking about how start-ups can typically comply with AGPL without trouble. cic48 claims that all software running on Borg needs to be extensively modified and then can only be compiled using Google's proprietary tool-chain. If that's true, then they can't run AGPL on Borg without releasing the code for the tool-chain.
> - Has consciously chosen to write policies prohibiting it based on misleading reasons
No. Has written policies prohibiting it for rational self-interest (GPL, MIT, etc licenses allow them to sell access via the Internet without any cost to them, AGPL does not). After writing these policies, they've provided an alternative justification.
> - Google adheres to that policy
Outside of Google Legal, who would know whether or not they adhere to their own internal policies? If they used AGPL software internally, they would have no legal obligation to disclose that (because they'd be fully in compliance).
> - Most importantly: they are doing this because they believe that the influence this would have in discouraging use of the AGPL is valuable enough to substantially benefit Google
Why "substantially"? I would imagine the cost of saying "don't use AGPL" and then publishing an article about it was very low. A couple person-weeks of work at the most? It's hard to imagine what wouldn't be worth that investment.
But I think you didn't understand the article, because the main thrust of it was to encourage businesses to not be afraid of the AGPL, not to determine whether Google is acting maliciously or not.