AGPL, along with all code contributed having copyright attributed to the project is the only true way. this is because MIT allows companies to internalize projects and completely co-op them.

The important detail of making this work is creating secondary commercial licenses which companies can use in order not to reveal or contribute code back. this provides a mechanism for open source projects to make money, while protecting the end users. which have come to depend on it, or which may have contributed to it as an author. this need is why the copyright attribution to the project is necessary for all contributions.

I cannot understand why this is not a more commonly chosen path. it really strikes the perfect balance between allowing companies to use code in whatever way they might need to (as long as they are willing to pay for it), creating support for open source projects, and preventing and shitification of successful open source projects which users support.

importantly, any such commercial license is offered should include prohibitions against re-implementation, as well as time limits so that the software cannot continue to be used indefinitely if an unanticipated but non-breaching use creates risk to the original project