Package Details: basilisk 2018.04.13-2

Git Clone URL: (read-only)
Package Base: basilisk
Description: Standalone web browser forked from, UXP version
Upstream URL:
Licenses: GPL, MPL, LGPL
Submitter: bm456
Maintainer: bm456
Last Packager: bm456
Votes: 0
Popularity: 0.000000
First Submitted: 2017-12-25 20:34
Last Updated: 2018-04-17 00:17

Dependencies (31)

Required by (0)

Sources (9)

Latest Comments

1 2 3 Next › Last »

FredBezies commented on 2018-07-26 07:22

Here is a working - and dirty - PKGBUILD for Basilisk 2018.07.18

1) Modified commit reference to get Basilisk 2018.07.18 release

2) Removed useless and dead patches : fix-wifi-scanner, 0001-Bug-54395-remove-hardcoded-flag-lcrmf.patch, nss_mozbuild.patch, modified-install-dir.patch

3) Added a mozver value in order to fix packaging

4) Removed some part of copy icon line in order to keep existing icons

5) || return 1 are obsolete. If a build process is broken, makepkg will manage it flawlessly.

Yes I know, it is a little dirty, but you can use it to make an up-to-date PKGBUILD.

frankspace commented on 2018-06-04 13:19


Thank you so very much. Yes, that's great, and I'm glad we can come to a solution that satisfies everyone. My apologies also for the delay in responding -- like everyone else, I'm afraid I too have a day job (and not an especially fast computer), so I'd like to beg a crumb of further indulgence by giving me a few days to put this together. If you'd like me to specifically contact you to keep you in the loop, I'm sure I can find your contact details somewhere to do that, but otherwise I'll get on this as soon as the rest of my meatspace-world commitments permit. Again, thanks very much for your help.

KlipperKyle commented on 2018-06-03 02:01


a cross between Steve Jobs and Hans Reiser.

That's an interesting combination. It made me laugh!

The problem I have is, the build process is eventually going to generate various things with "basilisk" in the name somewhere. If all of that has to be somehow renamed without breaking anything, well, that's certainly beyond my capabilities, and I don't even know where to begin. I expect that would be "behind the scenes" to a user, but technically still present.

I just talked to @mattatobin. He says not to worry about it. The build will generate some files that have the Basilisk name. However what's important is the name of the package, the name on the desktop file, and the logo.

I'd also like to know if it's acceptable to note in the package description that it's "derived from Basilisk",

He says that's OK too.

I'm glad I can help.

frankspace commented on 2018-06-03 00:31

@KlipperKyle, thank you. It is helpful.

Given that I don't want to put up with bickering, interpreting or defending whatever anyone believes a "necessary" patch to be, or depending on the whims of someone whose identity is not actually clear to me and may be the person with exceedingly poor diplomacy and communication skills who below made reference to "completely insane" and "squatting", yes, I would definitely be pursuing the first option. Bluntly, I have no intention of tolerating that kind of aggressive attitude; it reminds me a little of a cross between Steve Jobs and Hans Reiser.

Anyway, yes, the icon is already something new, the browser itself already identifies itself as "serpent," and it should be easy enough to rename the bin file used to launch it, desktop file, and I think that's it. The problem I have is, the build process is eventually going to generate various things with "basilisk" in the name somewhere. If all of that has to be somehow renamed without breaking anything, well, that's certainly beyond my capabilities, and I don't even know where to begin. I expect that would be "behind the scenes" to a user, but technically still present.

So, I just want to clarify whether it's necessary to literally strip the word "basilisk" out of everything, because (a) I don't know how to do that without breaking things, and (b) I'm afraid the license looks like a wall of text to me and I don't trust my own judgment to interpret it correctly. I'd also like to know if it's acceptable to note in the package description that it's "derived from Basilisk", which I would like to think would be okay because it's not claiming to be Basilisk, and Basilisk itself appears to note that it's derived from Mozilla, but I'd prefer not to take that for granted, under the circumstances.

I appreciate that you are not strictly speaking the authority figure here, but it looks as if you are someone who can actually be talked to reasonably. So, again, thank you.

KlipperKyle commented on 2018-06-02 22:56

@frankspace, the problem is that the software calls itself Basilisk when it is not a condoned configuration of Basilisk. That includes the package name, the .desktop file, and the icons.

Someone mentioned the icons have been changed to the non-branded Serpent icons. If that is the case, then great. I do not have an Arch Linux box, so I can neither confirm or deny.

The long story: this build has been customized with patches beyond the amount of patching required to obtain a stable build. For background, see point 8b in the Pale Moon redistribution license:

But keep in mind that the above redistribution license only applies to Pale Moon, not Basilisk. Rights to the Basilisk trademark are all rights reserved, and the trademark is held by Moonchild.

So, there are two routes:

  1. Call the browser Serpent (or whatever other cool name you want), and call this package serpent. (Is this the route you are trying to pursue?)
  2. If you wish to use the Basilisk package, take out all patches except the minimum required to get a stable build. Then, ask Moonchild for permission to use the Basilisk trademark.

For an example of a condoned from-source build of branded Basilisk, take a look at . Notice that there are no patches or modifications beyond those required to obtain a stable build.

Also, khronosschoty, who maintains the SlackBuild, is a build engineer for the Pale Moon team, so this SlackBuild has the stamp of approval. (I myself am not a build engineer for the team, so my personal knowledge of mozconfig is limited at the moment.)

If there are questions, please feel free to reach out to Moonchild or khronosschoty on the forums or IRC. Moonchild is the authoritative source.

The short story: call it Basilisk only if you obtain Moonchild's permission. Otherwise, call it Serpent, or whatever other cool name you want.

I hope this helps.

frankspace commented on 2018-06-02 17:50

I don't claim to understand why calling this package "basilisk" is such an issue, but I'd like to ask for a point of clarification without wading through a whole bunch of nastiness. Is the problem literally just that the package is called "basilisk"? I am not an IP lawyer or a programmer, and I'd like to see the exact problem spelled out in plain English in a non-abusive manner. If it has been, then I apologize, and I'd ask someone to take pity on my stupidity and do so again.

That said, I had a go at tampering with the PKGBUILD to remove any and all references to that word and replace them with "serpent", in the hopes that that will solve everybody's problems. It's easy enough to do things like change the name of icons and the desktop file, but if one of the upstream devs would point out to me how to change things like the internal directory names and the like, that'd be great. Also, note that as it is, the application does identify itself as "Serpent" anyway. Could someone suggest what should be added to mozconfig or anywhere else in the build instructions to forcibly remove literally any and all instances of "basilisk" from anywhere in the entire process whatsoever? Or if that's not necessary, what exactly is?

I'd be happy to try to put together a revised PKGBUILD that would satisfy everyone, but I want to know precisely what that needs to entail, without either aggressive posturing or simply referring to some other document. As has been noted, observations like "completely insane" is the exact opposite of helpful, whereas concrete suggestions like "please add the following line to mozconfig" will almost certainly be accepted without question. Thank you.

frankyboy commented on 2018-06-02 14:32

modified-install-dir.patch and nss_mozbuild.patch not available

Morganamilo commented on 2018-05-24 11:37

The way to rename a package it to upload it under a different name and send a merge request to this package. While you would expect it to be the maintainer who does it, anyone could do it if they wished. There is no need to wait for @bm456.

KlipperKyle commented on 2018-05-24 07:01

@phw, no worries! Take your time. I'll wait for @bm456's call.

I'm glad we could clear things up.

@bm456, there is a lot of information here. Take your time to absorb it. However, please know that this is a trademark concern, and the MPL does not grant a license to trademarks.

phw commented on 2018-05-24 06:52

@KlipperKyle While I am happy this is on the path of getting resolved, I am really astonished how you put the blame of escalation on the Arch side. Starting the discussion with "this is insane, I want you to remove it" without further explanation is just rude, aggressive and in no way productive. This set the tone for the entire discussion, the escalation is by no means a surprise. I suggest to send someone with more communication skills in the future for a first contact on trademark issues.

Also keep in mind that Arch is maintained by volunteers. And in the case of the AUR often volunteers with less ties to what can be considered the Arch core team. So you should be patient and respect that those volunteers also take some time to respond, as you for sure understand having a full-time job as well. So far @bm456 has not even commented on this, and currently @bm456 would be the one to do the change. If an AUR maintainer is completely unresponsive there are of course ways to disown the package and change the maintainer, but IMHO before taking action the current maintainership should be respected.