You can’t, if the code is open source it can be cloned to not fit in the license no matter what kind of license or fancy shenanigans you do.

The argument most MIT/BSL proponents have is that companies will be more likely to directly contribute if the project doesn’t have GPL “poisoning”.

I usually split the difference and license LGPL for everything.

the GPL v2 doesn’t have any less restrictions around strong copyleft (requiring that a company publish changes for components).

Maybe you’re thinking of the fact that GPL requirements don’t cross the kernel module syscall boundary?

This “poisoning”, effect is the reason the LGPL and AGPL licenses exist.