WebKit and Chromium are hard forks. The former is a fork of KHTML, and the latter is a hard fork of the former. However, in recent years I’ve only seen soft forks, and as for hard forks, I’ve only seen one with Pale Moon, which hard forked Gecko and named it Goanna due to disagreements with the direction the Mozilla Project was taking.
But why wouldn’t any organization make a hard fork, whether of WebKit, Chromium, Firefox, or another browser not based on the three mentioned above?
As others have said it is a huge amount of work to maintain a fork of such a complicated piece of software.
Especially around security: web browsers constantly process potentially-malicious data, which gives them a large attack surface. Every browser regularly has new vulnerabilities discovered which must be fixed. Hard forking a browser means that, even ignoring any bugs in the new code the fork has added, every time a bug is discovered and fixed in the code they forked from someone needs to analyze the upstream’s fix and port it to the fork. The more they diverge, the more work this is. Failing to do this work lets any malicious website exploit the bugs and install malware on users’ computers.
A big part of me wishes the browser would just die. Its become a bloated and surveilled mess, entirely controlled by like 2 companies, with 90% of the actual data being javascript spyware. There’s almost no browser that can’t be fingerprinted and linked to your identity nowadays.
A simple markdown browser for static content (IE like gemini), and native apps with open APIs that can render markdown for dynamic content (IE like most fediverse apps), should be all we need.