Copyright years

[Richard Kenner]

    > The list of year numbers should include each year in which you 
    > finished preparing a version which was actually released, and 
    > which was an ancestor of the current version.

    Does this mean we have to remove the year 2000 everywhere, because we
    didn't issue an actual release of GCC in that year ?

No.  It says "should include", meaning that even if a file wasn't changed
in a specific year, but there was a release that year, the file should
include that date, not that *only* release years should be listed.  However,
I think recent legal changes (dealing with "compilation copyright") has made
the practice of listing years where no changes were made just because a
release was made as dubious.