Trivial: Update link to MIT license (use HTTPS variant) #12190

Most source files contain the "default" copyright-header (also build by a script in devtools/copyright_header.py), which points out that the MIT license can be found in the COPYING file or at http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php.

However, the provided link is

1. using http where it could use https
2. resulting in a permanent (301) redirect (https://opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php) anyway.

I guess there are many other non-ssl links in the code base, but lets tackle the easier ones first.

I originally posted this to the bitcoin-dev mailinglist at https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2018-January/015495.html . Unfortunately I got only one feedback, saying I should give it a go on github and pointing out that the bitcoin-dev mailing list ist for protocol discussions. For completeness, I paste the content of my original mail here:

Hey there Most source files contain the "default" copyright-header (also build by a script in devtools/copyright_header.py), which points out that the MIT license can be found in the COPYING file or at http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php.

However, the provided link is 1) using http where it could use https, 2) resulting in a redirect (https://opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php) anyway. I am strongly in favor of using https where possible (I guess there are many other non-ssl links in the code base, but lets tackle the easier ones first).

I propose that I

1. create a issue on github,
2. sed -i the relevant links,
3. create a PR on github,
4. come back to the mailing list.

This change would affect a few hundred files I guess.

A question remaining is this change would require a copyright-year-extension (to 2018), too.

An example header can be seen e.g. here https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/a9a49e6e7e8df13d80a6dc3245ce7ef041942e9b/src/consensus/merkle.cpp#L3

I'd be happy about quick feedback - do not know the culture here, yet.

Have fun Felix

Closing, since we don't keep issues open to keep track of refactoring-wishlists.

@MarcoFalke I do not understand - is there anything I can/should do? Does that mean you'd prefer a new issue with a new PR or will the PR stay alive and just the issue is closed now? Or is the whole bunch a "will-not-happen" thing (in which case I'd put some blame on the mailinglist-people ;) )?

@fwolfst No action required from your side. Usually we close all issues that do not describe a bug or a feature that is blocking progress on other things. So for example, help requests, questions, standalone features, and refactoring issues (i.e. issues about changing the code but no functionality) are closed.

Good, thanks for explanation.

On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 7:17 PM, MarcoFalke notifications@github.com wrote:

@fwolfst https://github.com/fwolfst No action required from your side. Usually we close all issues that do not describe a bug or a feature that is blocking progress on other things. So for example, help requests, questions, standalone features, and refactoring issues (i.e. issues about changing the code but no functionality) are closed.

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/12190#issuecomment-357755728, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AANY7dSdY-yi8I8e1okPEXqhV9DSQTxcks5tK5ZEgaJpZM4RecRQ .