I love the fact a lot of us share macros here on the forum. What’s to stop someone from deciding that one of our macros caused their computer to lose data, or whatever, and sue one of us?
I’m retired. I couldn’t afford a lawsuit of any kind.
Can anyone give me a good reason I shouldn’t pull all my macros, tuck tail, and run?
I’m not a lawyer, but I’m looking through the keyboard maestro site and documentation now, trying to see if there’s a disclaimer that would cover your concerns. If not, you could include one in your macro posts, and in the macros themselves.
Not sure such action is necessary with the type of people who would seek this type of product but I understand your concern.
edit: Fine Print
I don’t think this covers YOU, but you could include something similar in your own threads and macros.
I see. It does read like Peter is putting all liability on the creator (you), as it should be, but, I think with a similar disclaimer in both your posts and your macros you can be reasonably comfortable posting here. I think the last bullet point is the most salient:
Again, no experience in this, just following along.
I’m leaning towards the MIT license. Short and sweet.
MIT License
Copyright (c) [year] [fullname]
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all
copies or substantial portions of the Software.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE
AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM,
OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE
SOFTWARE.
Go figure they’d have sorted this one out already. 
All I can say is, if anyone ever sues me, I’ve always wanted to use every swear word in every possible combination. Followed by, of course, FML. 
Or, less redundant and more to the point, the ISC license:
ISC License
Copyright (c) [year], [fullname]
Permission to use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for any
purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above
copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES
WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR
ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES
WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN
ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF
OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.
Definitely like that better. Thanks!
I like this license, with one addition, just under the Copyright notice:
By downloading this software, you agree to the following statements. Do not install or use if you do not agree.
I like where you’re going with this, but I’ve never liked this wording:
By downloading this software, you agree to the following statements.
I never agreed to anything just because I downloaded a file. Especially if I never read it first!
But I like the rest of it:
Do not install or use if you do not agree.
And of course, I have to pay tribute to Monty Python by adding the final line:
So there.
Please feel free to improve on it.
This statement, or minor variations of it, shows up on almost every piece of software I install. Perhaps it should be changed to:
By downloading or installing . . .
Well, my English isn’t the best, but isn’t this inherent to the term “license agreement” already?
Well, I don’t know if “improve” is the right word, but certainly "change:.
AAOUL? (Are Any Of Us Lawyers?) Who the hell knows what is considered inherent and isn’t, these days? 
Might as well add:
Yeah, this means YOU!
No, what I mean is, a license agreement is about agreeing, no? So, why saying once again in the text that it must be agreed?
If you mean implied, perhaps so. But it is generally best to be explicit in all legal documents. But IANAL, so consult with your own attorney. Nothing I state here, or anywhere, is legal advice.
No, I get it. It’s just that stating things 20 different ways seems to be inherent in legalese, at least to me.
I think I was just kidding, although now I’m not sure.
I think I’ll end up with whatever is “standard”, according to whichever license type I end up using.
There is nothing special about the “standard” agreements. They are built for the masses, which is not necessarily your situation. I change them all the time to suit my needs.
Maybe better: The fact that a license agreement is present should sufficiently express the necessity to agree to it 
– without the need to repeat that in the text.