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.

Yes and no. They first grant themselves a license "to derive and generate Telemetry" from the users copyrighted material, something that they only need if they're deriving it from the actual creative works the customer updates, and not just the metadata about them.

And they define telemetry extremely broadly, effectively "anything useful for lawful business purposes except customer data".

So this agreement would seem to cover things like "an update to an AI model trained off of your code" or even "an AI summary of what you're working on and any relevant business information contained therein". As long as they process it to something new, it's not "customer data" (a term defined narrowly in the agreement). I don't expect that they are doing that, but I think they've given themselves permission to. The agreement is far too broad.

I agree that I expect that they are deriving metadata, and would expect that regardless of this agreement, but this agreement doesn't seem necessary for that.

https://github.com/zed-industries/zed/issues/12589

TL;DR: Mix of language tooling, unsigned proprietary blobs, corrupted and/or GLIBC-dependent files, redundant copies of already-installed executables. The Node packages especially are able to run scripts on install. Personal preference aside, might also create issues with security laws, certifications. All without user consent.

Issues opened in January and June 2024. They've been rejected, closed, and opened a couple times since then. No changes directly improving this yet as of April 2026.

Personally, I think even if they eventually fix this, given the attitude shown towards their users' machines, I should probably just use an editor where I don't have to worry about it.

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.

I guess this assumes that you aren't already doing that when they click one option over another for a certain search term.

Just thinking about searching through some documentation sites and you get a dumb result you weren't looking for at the top, and would want to deprioritize that result.