We'll look into adjusting this to make it clearer that we don't do anything remotely concerning or invasive.
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."
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.
> 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.
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.
So, the terms were at least approved by some, and are now being revised because somebody pointed the problems out in a public forum.
I do a lot of back and forth with our lawyers on terms. I read all of it and give feedback.