[halJordan]

This is a bad faith take. The terms are modifiable without the customer's consent or knowledge so "pursuant to these terms" is meaningless.

No one needs all those rights to do what this block says it's going to do. Any one would require that block to be changed in any contract between equals. But this is a contract of adhesion, so it's uncharitable for you to demand charity where they withhold their charity

[KPGv2]

Can you cite the passage that authorizes Zed to modify the terms without the user's consent? Before I retired, my job was, inter alia, writing software licenses. I was GC for a tech company. I'd like to validate what you're saying, bc I'm the author of a Zed plugin and I wrote a language grammar that another plugin uses.

I don't use Zed, but I occasionally consider switching.

[Shadowmist]

16.4

[KPGv2]

That's not what 16.4 says, although I can understand how you'd think that (and personally, I would not have written 16.4 this way, and I've had a longstanding issue with a lot of software license phrasing; used to find all sorts of loopholes in partner agreements even with enormous companies like AT&T). 16.4 warns the user that terms might change, those terms will be available, and continued use of the product after the new terms are promulgated will constitute acceptance of the terms.

You can even see this in action: https://zed.dev/blog/terms-update

When new terms come out, you're forcibly signed out of the Zed service and have to agree to new ones before using the service again.

It's most likely the case that this clause was written so that someone using the service, when offered new terms, can't say "nah, Imma stick with the old terms" and then claim Zed aren't allowed to revoke the license.

[nathanmills]

What makes you think it's bad faith?