IANAL but I would expect you can only be held reponsible for a product if you say it fits a particular purpose.
But the python licence explicitly says:
PSF is making Python 3.11.3 available to Licensee on an "AS IS" basis.
PSF MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED. BY WAY OF
EXAMPLE, BUT NOT LIMITATION, PSF MAKES NO AND DISCLAIMS ANY REPRESENTATION OR
WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR THAT THE
USE OF PYTHON 3.11.3 WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY THIRD PARTY RIGHTS.
So it's not sold to you, and not distributed with any implied level of quality or guaranted service.
> I would expect you can only be held reponsible for a product if you say it fits a particular purpose.
That is an incorrect expectation. Even in the American legal system "I said don't do that" is not a shield against liability. In the EU framework a new law can pretty much create any new liability they want, so a disclaimer absolutely could be rendered meaningless.
But the python licence explicitly says:
PSF is making Python 3.11.3 available to Licensee on an "AS IS" basis. PSF MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED. BY WAY OF EXAMPLE, BUT NOT LIMITATION, PSF MAKES NO AND DISCLAIMS ANY REPRESENTATION OR WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR THAT THE USE OF PYTHON 3.11.3 WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY THIRD PARTY RIGHTS.
So it's not sold to you, and not distributed with any implied level of quality or guaranted service.