Add dimension and units of measure for VolumeAcceleration (#288)

[psung]

Adds classes to represents quantities that are the time derivative of VolumeFlow i.e. volume per time per time. (We find these useful for, among other things, driving liquid handling devices that take parameters specifying what the rate of change of the volume flow rate should be.) VolumeAcceleration should in general support operations with VolumeFlow and Volume analogous to the things you can do with Acceleration, Velocity, and Length.

The following units are supported: m^3/s^2, L/s^2, mL/s^2, and µL/s^2.

[cquiroz]

Sorry for the late review. In general the PR seems fine to me. I'll let other comments though

[garyKeorkunian]

This LGTM, but do we all feel that the CLA needs to be in place before a merge? The one linked in the previous comment is Lightbend's. Do we know if Typelevel has anything in place? I searched and found much discussion about it, but nothing definitive.

[derekmorr]

I haven't seen a typelevel cla.

[cquiroz]

I don't think there is a typelevel cla. I think i'd be happy if you'd just use your name for the copyright. What do the others think?

[garyKeorkunian]

So, in researching this further, it is not really a problem that Transcriptic hold the copyright for these files. The fact is, each individual contributor holds the copyright for their contributions. Generally, those notices should be added to relevant files.

When we contribute to OSS projects we are implicitly agreeing to release the code under the license used by the project. Apache 2.0 in our case.

If any contributor decides to "fork and close source" their contribution, they can, but whatever they contributed to this repo would continue to be available to us and our users.

There are two potential problems that could arise - not just with this, but with every contributor:

1. If we want to release Squants under a license other than Apache, we would need to get the express approval of every contributor. For this and any contribution from a corp, that would need to be an authorized executive of the company.

2. If we feel someone is violating our license we need all copyright holders (ie all contributors) to participate in any enforcement suit.

To be clear, I'm not a lawyer, but this makes basic sense to me.

That all said, since each contributor is already a copyright holder for their contributions - whether or not they provided an explicit notice - we already accepting PR's like this.

My vote is to go ahead and accept the PR.

Going forward we may want to add a notice to the README making this position more explicit.

Thoughts?