[maxbrunsfeld]

Thanks for pointing this out. Our whole terms-of-service is just standard boilerplate provided by our lawyers, but this part doesn't really apply to Zed. Obviously, there's no "content moderation" for project code that you collaborate on with Zed.

We'll look into adjusting this to make it clearer that we don't do anything remotely concerning or invasive.

[ibejoeb]

Thanks for addressing it.

Also: the thing looks really compelling. I would really like to try it out. But I can't use it. Not with irrevocable consent. If I make something that turns into billions of dollars...well, there are people that would exploit these terms. It's an absolute no-go.

> Obviously, there's no "content moderation" for project code that you collaborate on with Zed.

Not only is it non-obvious, it's explicitly stated that you can do what you want with any content that you are exposed to, which is all of it, because you've granted yourself the ability to surveil everything. And not only what the "Application" or "Tool" sees, but by any means available to you by the "Service."

[Meekro]

I'm glad to hear you'll be addressing this. To an unsophisticated reader like myself, it sounds like you guys are planning to examine the code I edit in Zed, maybe even keep copies of it. Aside from the general creepiness, many programmers are bound by contract to protect their employer's codebase.

[zamalek]

> License: Zed will do so for Zed’s benefit, not yours.

Never in my life have I seen such a boisterous "fuck you" in a legal document. Who are your lawyers, and what on Earth (or off Earth for that matter) are they smoking? In what alternate reality is this a "boilerplate" EULA?

I mean, holy shit.

[foolswisdom]

I can sorta believe that this was provided by lawyers without proper review, because writing this

> In the event that Zed pre-screens, refuses or removes any Content, you acknowledge that Zed will do so for Zed’s benefit, not yours.

is such an outrageous thing to write in the terms. On the other hand, claiming this is standard boilerplate strains credulity.

In any case, seeing this definitely colors how I see the rest of it.

[jgalt212]

Fair enough, but why not push back on the lawyers before pushing the publish button, and spare yourself from a possibly inauspicious start?

[foxandmouse]

When you go to a tailor for a custom suit, do you double-check that he's taken accurate measurements?

[jgalt212]

I do check that it fits and that he's delivering what I've asked him to deliver. And if I don't know what a good custom suit should be, then I should not buy one, or I should seek assistance in its purchase.

[igetspam]

I don't own a custom suit but I assume I'd be in the room when they were taking my measurements and I my eyes would be open, so I could see the tape. And then I'd try it own before agreeing to taking it home. I'm not sure which side of the argument your analogy is on.

I do a lot of back and forth with our lawyers on terms. I read all of it and give feedback.

[throwawaysalome]

Because most reasonable people don't cavil about self-evident boilerplate.

[version_five]

This sounds like a jab at people that are raising this as a concern. Maybe I'm looking at it wrong.

What I've seen is that lawyers or anyone drafting agreements generally likes to overstate their position, or put another way take as much as they can get away with. It's rarely done with explicit malicious intent, more with negotiation in mind. Ask for more than you want and then go back and forth to arrive at something that works.

It's just sort of an added bonus if people agree with the terms.

So anyway, it's incumbent on those negotiating and agreeing to contracts to read what they're signing up for and discuss to arrive at an actual agreement that serves everybody. What happened in the discussion above is actually a great example of that happening, even if it was inadvertent.

[temporary22]

And this is NOT self evident boilerplate. It's quite the opposite, and I do not believe any company would get a product out without reviewing the T&C.

So, the terms were at least approved by some, and are now being revised because somebody pointed the problems out in a public forum.

[nicoburns]

You might also want to consider only asking the user to agree to it when initiating use of the collaborative service rather than when they install the app.

[foxandmouse]

Thanks for the refreshing honesty! The law industry already seems to use (dumb) automation, no wonder they're so afraid of AGI replacing them.