Pale Moon forum

Hello,

I've recently purchased the rights to the Basilisk browser project from Moonchild. The project is now under my ownership.

Overall I'd like to keep things going as they were before the project was previously discontinued. I intend to try my best to release an update each time the UXP platform has a new release. Currently I'm working on fixing some breakage building Basilisk against the current UXP release, the breakage is mainly WebRTC related.

Windows builds will continue to be released. I also intend to release both GTK2 and GTK3 builds for Linux. Some other things I've considered are Mac and 32 bit Linux builds. I don't use either of those, so those would need some assistance from the community in ensuring they continue to work. I'd actually like some input into whether or not this is even worth the time.

Please reach out to me if there are any questions. I can be reached via PM here on the forum. My username on RPMO is Basilisk-Dev.

The current repo is now located at https://repo.palemoon.org/Basilisk-Dev/Basilisk

Thanks!

Glad to hear about this development, and congratulations.

Is there any possibility of renewing a 32-bit Windows build once again? I'd really appreciate that happening.

Regards

Keith Moon wrote: ↑

2022-07-29, 20:34

Is there any possibility of renewing a 32-bit Windows build once again? I'd really appreciate that happening.

This is a possibility. I don't have a Windows dev environment setup at all at the moment (I'm not a Windows user) so it will be a little bit before I get around to any Windows builds. Right now my main focus is getting Basilisk building again with WebRTC enabled. I want that working before I do any new releases.

Hello, I'm not a Basilisk user, but my extensions used to be compatible before the project was discontinued.
I'm not going to re-add support for the time being because it's a bit of a maintenance burden and I want to wait and see how the project goes first.
Is it safe to assume that things will remain as they were (from the point of view of the extension) and reinstating the deleted code is enough to get it working again?

vannilla wrote: ↑

2022-07-29, 22:34

I'm not going to re-add support for the time being because it's a bit of a maintenance burden and I want to wait and see how the project goes first.
Is it safe to assume that things will remain as they were (from the point of view of the extension) and reinstating the deleted code is enough to get it working again?

Yes, that's the intention. I don't plan to make any extension-breaking changes if at all possible. Simply restoring the removed code that provides Basilisk support should be good enough.

Basilisk-Dev wrote: ↑

2022-07-29, 18:22

I've recently purchased the rights to the Basilisk browser project from Moonchild. The project is now under my ownership.

What did you buy and own now? The domain name and the logo?

I thought this is an open source project and the Basilisk (name) trademark was obviously abandoned (TM stands for unregistered trademark).

random wrote: ↑

2022-07-30, 12:47

I thought this is an open source project

It is, but that doesn't mean everything in it is public domain.

random wrote: ↑

2022-07-30, 12:47

the Basilisk (name) trademark was obviously abandoned

No, it was not. The name and trademark were not abandoned - I just stopped further software development start of this year. That doesn't mean it's instantly a free-for-all.
Whether the trademark is registered or not also doesn't matter, except when there's litigation where there's no clear proof who owns it. And even then that registration is regional.

Basilisk-Dev wrote: ↑

2022-07-30, 02:09

Yes, that's the intention. I don't plan to make any extension-breaking changes if at all possible. Simply restoring the removed code that provides Basilisk support should be good enough.

That's great. Then I'm going to wait for official releases and see from there.

Congratulations. Looking forward to seeing Basilisk updated & maintained.

Can we hope to have Widevine DRM support reinstated? The existing implementation is broken when it comes to Netflix/Amazon Prime.

I've been releasing a rebranded "fork" of Basilisk called Silver for mac, for each update to UXP for some time now. I've recently been using andkrau's basilisk repo as my source, which recently was updated by DBSoft for mac to work and be able to be compiled. Hopefully you can be able to support mac further, so i can continue to release Silver. Also excellent to know that the extensions site for Basilisk will continue to live on.

noobsoftware wrote: ↑

2022-08-01, 14:28

Also excellent to know that the extensions site for Basilisk will continue to live on.

We haven't really discussed the practicality of this but i don't see an issue with continuing to run phoebus' framework on APMO also for Basilisk as a matter of goodwill
It'll just need to be pointed to by the new dev in their DNS setup (addons.basilisk-browser.org) of the domain once transferred.

noobsoftware wrote: ↑

2022-08-01, 14:28

I've been releasing a rebranded "fork" of Basilisk called Silver for mac, for each update to UXP for some time now. I've recently been using andkrau's basilisk repo as my source, which recently was updated by DBSoft for mac to work and be able to be compiled. Hopefully you can be able to support mac further, so i can continue to release Silver. Also excellent to know that the extensions site for Basilisk will continue to live on.

All of the relevant mac fixes are included upstream. I'd give building a shot.

andkrau wrote: ↑

2022-08-01, 15:56

All of the relevant mac fixes are included upstream. I'd give building a shot.

Good to know, I'll wait for the latest version of UXP to be released before building a new version.

moonbat wrote: ↑

2022-08-01, 00:36

Can we hope to have Widevine DRM support reinstated? The existing implementation is broken when it comes to Netflix/Amazon Prime.

Unfortunately that's very unlikely. Moonchild covers the reasons for the removal here and the situation is still exactly the same as it was then. Google isn't willing to license Widevine to us, we wouldn't be able to take advantage of Widevine even if the code was still in place in the platform. If Silverlight still works for Netflix you should still be able to use that, but I'm not sure if that works anymore.

noobsoftware wrote: ↑

2022-08-01, 14:28

I've been releasing a rebranded "fork" of Basilisk called Silver for mac, for each update to UXP for some time now. I've recently been using andkrau's basilisk repo as my source, which recently was updated by DBSoft for mac to work and be able to be compiled. Hopefully you can be able to support mac further, so i can continue to release Silver. Also excellent to know that the extensions site for Basilisk will continue to live on.

I've merged andkrau's changes into the upstream repo.

I don't have the ability to release official Mac builds at this time (I don't own a Mac). I am fine with the community releasing builds using either your fork's Silver branding or the Serpent branding included in the official repo but at the moment Mac support is entirely a community effort. I am willing to merge in any Mac changes in the future if they don't break Linux or Windows builds, but these will be merged under the assumption that community members using Mac OS tested those changes.

I just came across this now. Thanks a lot and I hope it lasts even longer than the OG Basilisk!

will flash plugin support remain?

Chell07 wrote: ↑

2022-09-27, 00:06

will flash plugin support remain?

Yes, I have no intention to remove NPAPI support at all. As a general rule of thumb, if Basilisk does something now it will still be able to do that thing in the future.

That being said, it is possible that UXP platform changes may break things in the future. If that happens it will be noted in a forum post and in the release notes.

Basilisk-Dev wrote: ↑

2022-07-30, 02:09

Yes, that's the intention. I don't plan to make any extension-breaking changes if at all possible. Simply restoring the removed code that provides Basilisk support should be good enough.

It is a very good new that you are supporting Basilisk.
What about restoring the partial support for WebExtensions (removed from Basilisk on 2018)?

Many users from the dead/dying Waterfox classic would be potential users of a supported browsers with some kind of WE support.