It has dependency Xceed.Words.NET which you have to pay for using it:
You can try this package for free for 15 days, after which you will need to purchase a license key to continue using it.
Can you please share some more details like the version of the package you tried, studio version and steps to reproduce the issue.
This information will be very helpful to the product team to get this fixed.
This dependency has been part of word packages from long as old as version 1.10.1 . Any official package shared unless specified would not need any specific license requirement for dependencies
Cheers
You are right, it was a dependency for long time. But when you update the package a popup shows up and you have to agree to 3rd party licenses if you want to continue installation… And Xceed license obliges to pay for it.
We read in UiPath Master Software and Services Agreement:
4.3. Third-Party Licenses. Technology may contain or may be used with third party components, including open-source software, which are the property of their respective owners. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, use of the open-source software will be subject to the license terms and conditions applicable to such open-source software, to the extent required by the applicable licensor (which terms shall not restrict the license rights granted to Customer hereunder).
UiPath.Word.Activities v2.0.1, Studio version - newest. When updating package one must agree to 3rd party licenses.
the clause says the same that UiPath official packages which are used are complied by UiPath itself but yes you still need to provide consent hence the agrrement window, comply to terms but not paying for it.
If you are using the same package xceed on your own then you are liable to pay
cheers
It’s a standard wording from the vendor which don’t impact here. Rest assured your bot will fail after 15 days. 
It’s not about failing, but exposing a financial risk of needing to pay backwards for licensing. Not everything has to have a licensing kill-switch to accrue liability (see any intrusive open source license that requires you to open source yourself).
Going lawyery on it, it’s not necessarily 100% clear cut.
From one hand, there’s the indemnification clause:
7.1 UiPath Indemnification. UiPath, at its expense, will defend Customer against any claim, action, or legal proceeding made against Customer by a third-party non-affiliated with the Customer alleging that the use of the Technology, during the License Term
and as delivered by UiPath, infringes the third party’s patent or copyright or that UiPath misappropriated the third party’s trade secret (“IP Claim”) and will indemnify against any damages finally awarded to Customer by a court of competent jurisdiction
(or settlement amounts agreed to in writing by UiPath) in the limits set out in this Agreement
(emphasis mine)
So reading just that, UiPath will indemnify, or in other words, shield if a company like Xceed would start going around and demanding license payment from anyone using UiPath.word.activities package.
That said, the Technology is defined as:
“Technology” means each and together, the (i) Software identified in the applicable Order, (ii) materials developed by UiPath for Customer, including during performance of Services, and (iii) UiPath Background IPR.
And the license granted is:
3.1 License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, UiPath grants Customer and its Affiliates, upon delivery and during the License Term, a limited, non-exclusive, non-sublicensable, non-transferable, worldwide right to access and use the
Technology specified in the applicable Order, solely for their internal business purposes and in accordance with the applicable Licensing Policy and the associated Documentation.
Is the Word package part of the licensed Technology? You could argue that it is (it’s an official source tied to the Technology itself), and common sense would agree with you, but when it comes to contracts, and especially IP related stuff in contracts, common sense has no power there (and interpretations can differ in various jurisdictions - f.e. IP rights in EU vs US vs Japan are very different).
On the pure licensing terms perspective, the additional packages you install are your own choice, and you have agreed to their terms and conditions.
So it’s not as clear cut without an explicit waiver.
For example - if I built a wrapper around Xceed for some use case, and license the wrapper itself under MIT (which I can - it’s my creation), that does not waive Xceed’s right to money if you use it without having a license. Or in other words, vetting dependency chains is part of due diligence, and should be commended. So definitely kudos to @gediminas for raising this up.
That 4.3 paragraph is very explicit about open source, but it’s very silent about closed source/paid-license works (btw - a thing can be open source and still require a license payment. Open source != free).
So while it’s 99% fine, and UiPath would expose themselves to a massive class action if Xceed would start suing UiPath users for infringement and they wouldn’t step in, it would be great if the 4.3 paragraph (or the technology definition) would be expanded/clarified to cover licensing of dependencies for UiPath official packages.
@loginerror - tagging you here, as you could probably cut the whole discussion short and confirm that indeed UiPath does secure redistribution licensing from their paid-license dependencies on official packages.
1 Like
That was insightful @andrzej.kniola. let’s see POV of UiPath on this.
@loginerror we need you here 
Hey everyobody,
Thank you for raising this up. Let me discuss this internally, and I will come back with an official answer.
Thank you,
2 Likes