Update readmes, licenses, maintainers, etc

[ivanpauno]

A lot of files doesn't have any license (including example packages). Also, we should add readme files to the examples, and update the maintainers before doing a public release.

@jubeira With which license should be this usually published??

[jubeira]

ROS-related stuff is usually published under Apache 2.0 license.
I'm not 100% sure about the copyright notices. Maybe something like:

/*
 * Copyright 2019 Ekumen, Inc.
 * Copyright 2019 Intermodalics.
 *
 * Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");
 * you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.
 * You may obtain a copy of the License at
 *
 *      http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
 *
 * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
 * distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
 * WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
 * See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
 * limitations under the License.
 */

@meyerj thoughts?

[dvanthienen]

Hi Ivan, Juani,

• Intermodalics owns the copyright on all the work we paid you for, hence new files created should only mention Intermodalics. Changes to existing files get the Intermodalics copyright statement added.
• For the files we clearly agreed upon to be made open source: the license should follow the license of the project if it is permissive, otherwise best to ask explicitly. So in this case, if the remainder of the project is Apache 2.0, you can release new files under Apache 2.0. The format of the statement should follow the convention applied to the remainder of the project (if that is at least following some best practice). Hence also here LGTM.

HTH

Nick

[jubeira]

ACK, thanks for the clarifications @dvanthienen !