If others ACK this change, we can even remove dot from the link:

https://opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php. ❌
https://opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php ✅

If others ACK this change, we can even remove dot from the link:

https://opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php. x
https://opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php white_check_mark

This is not a "dot in the link". It's rather a full stop at the end of the sentence.

Not sure if a link needs to end with anything extra.

Example:

https://github.com/github/snakebite/blob/6a456e6100b0c1be66cc1f7f9d7f50494f369da3/setup.py#L9

There is nothing extra here after http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0

Anyway its a nit which can be ignored. Don't think anyone uses links from here.

NACK, this is not worth changing 1157(!) files for.

The following sections might be updated with supplementary metadata relevant to reviewers and maintainers.

Conflicts

Reviewers, this pull request conflicts with the following ones:

• #22930 (build: remove glibc back compat by fanquake)
• #22734 (addrman: Avoid crash on corrupt data, Force Check after deserialize by MarcoFalke)
• #22650 (Remove -deprecatedrpc=addresses flag and corresponding code/logic by mjdietzx)
• #22392 (scripts: use LIEF for ELF security & symbol checks by fanquake)
• #21763 (test: Run AppInitSanityChecks before all tests by MarcoFalke)
• #21327 (net_processing: ignore transactions while in IBD by glozow)
• #20295 (rpc: getblockfrompeer by Sjors)
• #20277 (test: Extend p2p_ibd_tx_relay.py to verify no-transaction are requested during IBD by ariard)
• #14707 ([RPC] Include coinbase transactions in receivedby RPCs by andrewtoth)

If you consider this pull request important, please also help to review the conflicting pull requests. Ideally, start with the one that should be merged first.

@laanwj Would modifying the contrib/devtools/copyright_header.py to handle it with the next copyright update be acceptable then?

@laanwj Would modifying the contrib/devtools/copyright_header.py to handle it with the next copyright update be acceptable then?

Not if it changes all files. I guess if a header has to be updated anyway it doesn't hurt to change

but… I honestly don't think changing http to https is important here, the lowest priority possible. I'm not sure there should even be a link, it's not like that site is leading, ideally people would refer to the LICENSE file that is in the repository. And everyone knows what the "MIT" license is, anyhow, it could be replaced with "SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT" and it'd be just as clear.

By that same logic, aren't the copyright headers redundant? They should be the same as the LICENSE file unless specified otherwise.

Opinions differ on that. I think the status quo is to have some license marker in every source file because files tend to get copied around on their own sometimes. This is why the SPDX standard was designed. It's more set in stone than either a website reference or local repo reference. But it's newer than bitcoin.

Anyhow, IMO, it's not worth changing this at this point, the incremental benefit to changing this now is zilch. I would suggest letting this go and finding another way to contribute.