Naming change and asmdef shortening

[hybridherbst]

This is a two-fold PR for two very different reasons. Also, it's kind of a tough one...

Unity has recently become a bit nervous around scoped registries, especially when it comes to their name and trademarks. This shows in things such as the new Package Manager TOS (that call out what is / is not allowed to do with packages inside Unity), and also in an uptake of change requests to packages and products using "something something Unity" in their name.

1. To be on the safe side here, I'd recommend changing the package name, dropping the "unity" part.
2. We were running into issues with long filenames on the assembly files on Windows, especially with submodules in git and nested projects; thus I shortened the asmdef names as well and put it into typical format for asmdefs.

Let me know what you think. At this point it's of course unclear what UT will do, but I wanted to put that out for discussion rather sooner than later :)

[jespersmith]

Thank you for pointing this out. I agree that having Unity in the name could lead to confusion and we should change our naming scheme for Unity projects (currently it is halodi-[technology]-[function] or eve-[technology]-[function]). I'll discuss this internally and rename all our package at once (probably this week).

I wished Windows fixed their long path name issues, we'll make sure the new name is shorter.

[jespersmith]

I merged the asmdef renames, but held off on renaming the package (makes updates harder). I've added ticket #27 to think about this more.