To be fair one is for demonstration purposes and the other is intended to be used. They seek the same protections regardless. It's kind of like how a $1,000 water filtration system wants the same legal protection that a $15 Brita does or heck, I'd assume if you got scammed with a fraudulent water filter that used orgone energy and crystals, it too would also want those legal protections.
You'd probably want to tread cautiously if someone doesn't use disclaimers - that's probably a more dangerous product.
Isn't the argument presented here that just because two things have the same "no responsibility in event of failure"-clause does not mean likelihood of failure, robustness, battletesting, etc, are comparable? Or am I missing something
You'd probably want to tread cautiously if someone doesn't use disclaimers - that's probably a more dangerous product.