[zozbot234]

Nope, it wouldn't. It's already implied by the general disclaimer of warranty in existing FLOSS licenses; adding that express provision would merely bring some much-needed clarity.

[marcodiego]

That clause would hurt freedom 0: the freedom to user the software for whatever you want.

[zozbot234]

How so? "You acknowledge that X is not designed or intended for use in Y" is not a restriction on using X for Y: it's just telling you in no uncertain terms that the developers of X will not be helping you with any issues if it turns out you are using it for Y. This looks like the exact situation that OP is in, and that the Java provision is designed to guard against.

[InGoodFaith]

The confusion stems from how you initially worded it as

> GPL licensing exception

If you instead replaced "exception" with a warranty disclaimer then your intent would've been more clear in your original post.