The only solution is a completely new, closed source, fee-based miner with completely new kernels written in isolation from the specs. The resulting binaries would further need to be copy protected to dissuade reverse-engineering and binary patching. How many people do you think would trust that?
Not necessarily.
My miner is moving towards being fully data-driven and so far everything is either MIT or zlib. In theory I would be fully for zlib but for a reason or the other I ended up with MIT. So there is (will be) full source accessibility, ability to rebuild privately, fully legal to redistribute as the kernels can be plugged in as you plug in a new map in a game.
To be completely honest the whole point of this message is to ask you to take a look at the license.txt file I've used as I'm only about 99% sure it's compliant right now.
can you incorporate a miner fee in the kernel? I guess not... nor you can avoid someone remove the whole fee code in the miner because it's opensource...