Even by requiring the licensee to state when he adapts the original work, that doesn't solve the fact that someone can twist the licensor opinions without even knowing he did so.
For example, a Brazilian (that calls himself "free software activist") watched Richard Stallman talk on Stockholm, in January 25th, 2016 (https://www.fsf.org/events/rms-20160125-stockholm), and published a blog post about it (https://helio.loureiro.eng.br/). According to the "free software activist", Stallman "said that BSD systems are currently free software. Maybe after discussing with Theo de Raadt, creator of the OpenBSD system, he apparently rethought his criteria for free software and operating systems, since he have never said so.". And he also said that, according to Stallman, "open source does not exist". Also, this "free software activist" notes that Stallman used an image of Tux (instead of Freedo) on the presentation. Perhaps the person who did the drawing had only black pen. I personally think it's advisable to promote Freedo (Linux-libre) instead of Tux (Linux), since Linux is still non-free. I call him "free software activist" in quotes because his blog constantly teaches people how to use/install/fix some non-free functional data, let alone requiring some minor non-free JavaScript.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
