Seems like legalese to be able to take that data for support reasons, telemetry, and local laws that require that data be sent to them. I think ignoring this portion is a little uncharitable to them.
None of the above I like, and (a) is so vague as to be useless, including if you read the obligations.
>Except as required by applicable Laws, Zed will not provide Customer Data to any person or entity other than Customer’s designees (including pursuant to Section 7) or service providers."
Companies still do it all the time despite "applicable laws". And when the company is sold, all bets are off.
I'd rather they don't get, or keep, any to begin with.
"telemetry": {
"diagnostics": false,
"metrics": false
}> Customer may configure the Software to opt out of the collection of certain Telemetry Processed locally by the Software itself, but Zed may still collect, generate, and Process Telemetry on Zed’s servers.
Note that they have (or did have, I haven't used their editor in awhile) an AI tab completion feature... it's safe to assume that all of the code you edit is sent to them at least when that is enabled.
Hopefully it does restrict them being sent to them in the first place.
I also found there are a couple of "Chromium" style builds.
>Note that they have (or did have, I haven't used their editor in awhile) an AI tab completion feature... it's safe to assume that all of the code you edit is sent to them at least when that is enabled.
There's also an option to turn ai features off. At which point of course, nvim is just as good :)
> AI tab completion feature... it's safe to assume that all of the code you edit is sent to them
Yes, this is quite obvious, how else could they provide AI tab completion? I hope anybody understands this before using sth like this. They do specify that "[...] telemetry expressly does not include Customer Data" though.
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
I don't use Zed, but I occasionally consider switching.
I honestly can't see any legitimate reason why they'd have the right to derivate work from yours, and you don't insert that kind of terms by mistake.
How do people continually fall for this. Refusing to look at the playbook that has been run time and time again and then getting offended when it is too late.
These are about processing the data, not owning it. They need to process the data eg to provide llm-based tab-completion. A completion is derivative work, and it is also owned by the customer, as it says below.
[0] https://zed.dev/terms#42-customers-ownership-of-output
> The Service may generate specifically for, and make available to, Customer text and written content based on or in response to Customer Data input into the Service (collectively, “Output”), including through the use of technologies that incorporate or rely upon artificial intelligence, machine learning techniques, and other similar technology and features. As between the Parties, to the greatest extent permitted by applicable Laws, Customer owns all Output and Zed hereby irrevocably assigns to Customer all right, title, and interest in and to the Output that Zed may possess. For the avoidance of doubt, Zed and its AI Providers will not retain or use Customer Data for the purpose of improving or training the Service or any AI Provider products, except to the extent Customer explicitly opts-in on Zed’s specific feature to allow training and/or such improvement (such as fine-tuning) and is solely for the benefit of Customer.
That said the definition of "telemetry" is so broad that I think it would include training a LLM and the like. Telemetry is defined in section 4.4 as
> Zed may collect, generate, and Process information, including technical logs, metrics, and data and learnings, related to the Software and Service (“Telemetry”) to improve and support the Services and for other lawful business purposes.
I guess that it's so opaque is also objectionable. Contracts don't have to be inscrutable.
1. Mandatory arbitration by default. You waive your right to a jury trial and cannot join class action lawsuits. You have only 30 days to opt out after agreeing to the terms.
2. 1-year statute of limitations. You must file any legal claim within one year, which is much shorter than the default period under most state laws.
3. Zed can terminate your account at any time, for any reason, with no liability. No notice is required, and they owe you nothing if they pull the plug.
4. Autocomplete sends your code to AI providers in the background unless you turn it off. Worth knowing if you're working on proprietary or sensitive code.
5. No guarantees about data retention. If your payment lapses, they reserve the right to delete your account and all associated data with no liability.
6. All fees are non-refundable except where required by law, with one narrow exception for disagreeing with modified terms.
7. Zed can modify the terms at any time. For existing users, material changes take effect after just 30 days, and continued use counts as acceptance.
8. Zed can use your name, logo, and brand in their marketing without asking. You'd have to send a written request to stop them.
9. No warranties whatsoever. The service is "as is", they disclaim all responsibility for errors, data loss, or AI-generated output being inaccurate or harmful.
10. Liability is capped very low, at most, whatever you paid in the last 12 months, or $100, whichever is higher.
Zed devs reading this: just release it as GPL. It will be better for literally everyone.
It’s a local text editor. The only thing an account gives you is access to their specific flavour of coding agent and a collaboration server.
> If your payment lapses, they reserve the right to delete your account and all associated data with no liability.
Pretty much the only associated data is your payment info.
I am literally shopping for a new editor. A once-a-decade thing for me. I want something that can effectively sandbox local models for code gen.
So I was looking at Zed yesterday. Cloned the repo. Then I noticed they were funded by our favorite VCs.
Between this and CVE-2026-31431 ("Copy Fail"), it seems like I dodged a bullet.
I've been wanting to look into better emacs integration for agents. Imagine an agent making direct elisp function calls, or using macros... One could limit which functions are allowed to run similar to how cli harnesses work, but plug straight into LSP and etc.
This is sensible, no?
Suggests there's a longer term storage, available for hackers.
There are hundreds of references to http requests in the source tree, though most seem associated with calling particular AI model providers.
This looks to be the telemetry struct: https://github.com/zed-industries/zed/blob/a7c9c24f40d7e9169...
It appears to crawl your worktrees collecting an inventory of the types of projects you have and is interested in certain named files specificaly: https://github.com/zed-industries/zed/blob/a7c9c24f40d7e9169...
2. Telemetry defaults to on. So turn off telemetry as explained at https://zed.dev/docs/telemetry#configuring-telemetry-setting...
"telemetry": {
"diagnostics": false,
"metrics": false,
},If it's open source it can't have a license agreement to use the software itself
Or is this an agreement to use some cloud service? Supposedly you can opt to not use it
Elsewhere people said that "even if you disable telemetry, Zed can still collect telemetry" but, it being open source means you're still in control
No open source license can force you to run misfeatures
https://github.com/zed-industries/zed/issues/50568#issuecomm...
So far they've been great and product is fantastic as you know.
They could be the next "don't do evil" people but practice shows that doesn't last for long. And then the messy license terms become very handy for what comes next.
If they went to the trouble to specify all of their rights over your data, their glossing over about what they can do with it is a solid reason to push for complete clarity or pull out completely.
If it is a matter of communication, they can fix and clarify it. If it's genuinely scummy, they can change their approach now that they know they were caught in the act
What’s local stays entirely and totally local, always and every time, otherwise what’s the point?
Customer hereby grants Zed
{{ broad list of rights }}
solely:
{{ for these purposes }}
Also see "4.4. Telemetry: .... For avoidance of doubt, Telemetry expressly does not include Customer Data."
My two cents: I'm not worried about Zed's contract here. Much more important to pay attention to when your data goes to third-party AI providers: read _their_ contract language.
Meta-comment: Don't let a well-meaning comment like the above trigger a panic. Better to get familiar with typical contracts and/or build your personal network for legal advice.
P.S. Look out for shameless legal slop on the Web, I "promise.legal" it is out there.
With AI being so good why isn't someone making fully open source alternatives to all this crap by now?
Oh Zed is open source, maybe Codex/Claude can make a VSCodium-like fork off it?
It baffles me that people ask this question all the time and it never occurs to them that perhaps the answer is "because it isn't".
I'm sure it can handle "remove all instances of telemetry"
1. SaaS Agreements: Key Contractual Provisions https://www.americanbar.org/groups/business_law/resources/bu...
2. Cornell Law School's Wex: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex
3. Coursera : American Contract Law I (Yale prof): https://www.coursera.org/learn/contracts-1
4. Software as a Service (SaaS) Agreements: Thomson Reuters/Westlaw (paywalled; trial available) https://content.next.westlaw.com/practical-law/document/I61c...
If anyone has good detailed resources that are free, please add.
[1] IANAL but I wasn't that far from going down that path. I've worked for a legal-tech startup, did really well in an undergrad Constitutional Law class, incorporated several small companies, managed lots of contractor agreements. So, I know from experience: legal language is weird and specific in ways you may not realize. So be intellectually humble and defer judgment until you talk to a legal expert. Hopefully people more experienced than I can weigh in with more specifics.