Link: https://zed.dev/blog/terms-update#links-and-contact

Following in the footsteps of Hashicorp, Hudson, etc. Zed has chosen to cash in the good will of its now substantial user base and start going to full corporate enshittification. Among other things like minimum age nonsense, they have also added binding mandatory opt-OUT arbitration.

I find such agreements very troubling, because it gives up public funded dispute resolution for private which nearly unanimously benefits larger entities, it lowers transparency to near zero, and eliminates the abilities to act as a class and to appeal. But I worry most will just accept it, as is the norm.

You can however opt out by emailing arbitration-opt-out@zed.dev with full legal name, the email address associated with your account, and a statement that you want to opt out.

I'll just consider my days of advocating for Zed as an interesting new editor over and go back to Neovim bliss.

Never understood a terms of service existing if the project code license is GPL or such. Can't this just be forked and cured of anti features, if people value it enough to do so?

Binding arbitration (aka, if we break the law you can't sue us) ought to be illegal in every country.

It already happened: https://gram.liten.app

Note that Zed has an Affero GPL, which limits others from competing with Zed Industries in the service space.

Doesn't the AGPL just say that you can't keep your changes/improvements private? (honest question: I seem to recall so, but I'm not really sure)

The zed-industries Github repository lists Zed licenses as AGPL, Apache and GPLv3.

The AGPL refers to the GNU Affero General Public license, which does not limit others from competing. Unless you mean the fact that forks must share source code when accessed over a network?

It seems you’re right. I may be confusing it with another license.

It is intended for software designed to be run over a network, adding a provision requiring that the corresponding source code of modified versions of the software be prominently offered to all users who interact with the software over a network.

I mistakenly thought it was more restrictive, thanks.

The terms on the right to use user data in section 4.1 are also a bit surprising. I'd expect that from a social network like Facebook, but not from a text editor.

this seems to only apply to their hosted services and not the binary itself?

Thanks for checking and reporting back! (I was too lazy to do that)