This is really two issues: docs and windows builds. As for docs:

Many of the module doc pages mention original authors and give urls for further info. The ssl page already says " This module uses the OpenSSL library." Rather than fuss over whether the doc constitutes 'advertising material' (and a lawyer certain could claim it does), we can easily expand the above to

"This module includes software developed by the OpenSSL Project for use in the OpenSSL Toolkit (http://www.openssl.org/) and cryptographic software written by Eric Young (eay@cryptsoft.com)."

or whatever would be correct. This wording better meets the attribution requirement *and* is more informative to users.

The download page currently does not contain the word 'license', which I think is an omission that should be filled. I think it should include something like the following reasonably near the top:

"The History and License for each version is included with its document set. In layperson's terms, the license more or less says that you can use Python as you wish as long as you 1) do not claim ownership of the name or code, and 2) assume full legal and moral responsibility for the downloading and use of the code, including the cryptographic modules." 

Builds: have there been multiple overt requests for no-crypto builds? Do any of the other build providers make such? I think this falls under "These re-packagings often include more libraries or are specialized for a particular application:" -- like being so unfortunate as to live in certain countries.