IANAL

> 1a. Google uses FooProject in delivering one of its GoogleApi, but does not opensource GoogleApi with AGPL.

Depends. GoogleApi may fall under any of these three cases:

i) is considered a covered work (A "covered work" means either the unmodified Program or a work based on the Program.), then it must be AGPL, therefore it falls under paragraph 1 of section 13, which means Google must offer the source of GoogleApi and FooProject. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html#section13

ii) is considered combined/linked with FooProject, then GoogleApi may be AGPL or GPL (paragraph 2 of section 13). If it's AGPL, then same as point i; if it's GPL then I believe Google would only have to redistribute the code of FooProject if modified (but not GoogleApi because GPL doesn't require it)

iii) neither, eg. if GoogleApi communicates with FooProject over an internal network: then I don't know.

> 1b. Facebook uses FooProject in an internal project, FacebookInternal, that's not exposed to the internet

AGPL only considers users (ie. people who can access the software): "your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network"

> 1c. Microsoft uses FooProject in a special version of Office, which is only distributed via BluRay and does not open source Office under AGPL.

Basically the same as GPL: "You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this License" https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html#section6

> 1d. Netflix uses FooProject in AlienNetflixViewer, which is used over the internet, and makes some modifications to FooProject as its used in AlienNetflixViewer. They open source ModifiedFooProject under AGPL, but not AlienNetflixViewer

see 1a

> 2. If you have FooProject, and you have 3 libarires, LibraryOne, LibraryTwo, and LibraryThree included in FooProject that are under the MIT license, can someone take Library[Number] and use it under the MIT license?

That's the definition of them being under MIT license.

> 3. Assuming someone uses an AGPL project and does not follow the license, what's the penalty? What if its so incorporated into its project its effectively impossible to remove?

licenses like AGPL grant the right to use software if the user follows certain restrictions. ("user" means developers using the code, here.): All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of copyright on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the stated conditions are met. This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the unmodified Program." https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html#section2

If you do not follow these restrictions, then you do not have the right to the software, so it is a copyright violation.

> 4. How do you enforce someone using the AGPL?

Sue for copyright infringement, because someone used your program without permission.

> 5. If you go to a public facing site and suspect that they're using an AGPL project (perhaps because of the nature of the API calls or the client facing JavaScript) can you demand to see the full source?

I don't know. All I can find is that: "If the work has interactive user interfaces, each must display Appropriate Legal Notices; however, if the Program has interactive interfaces that do not display Appropriate Legal Notices, your work need not make them do so."