When people say "gratuitous and destructive forks", they aren't referring to the fact that a fork was made, but the method that was used. Instead of cleanly making a new fork, they tried to take control of ffmpeg itself, making the situation worse for all. They also perpetuated a rumour that the ffmpeg project was dead, when it clearly wasn't. Often just the fact that you make the fork is enough to revitalise the development of the original project, or it will stagnate naturally as people use the fork.
As a recent example, no one has tried to take over openssl's development. A number of "fixit" forks have been made, and either openssl will lift their game, the forks will diverge, or they'll be merged back together.
Comments
When people say "gratuitous and destructive forks", they aren't referring to the fact that a fork was made, but the method that was used. Instead of cleanly making a new fork, they tried to take control of ffmpeg itself, making the situation worse for all. They also perpetuated a rumour that the ffmpeg project was dead, when it clearly wasn't. Often just the fact that you make the fork is enough to revitalise the development of the original project, or it will stagnate naturally as people use the fork.
As a recent example, no one has tried to take over openssl's development. A number of "fixit" forks have been made, and either openssl will lift their game, the forks will diverge, or they'll be merged back together.