It is hard to imagine a site about discussing OSS/FOSS where contract, IP, copyright and patent law are not permitted. Realistically open source exists meaningfully only because of licenses (like the GPL) that have been carefully engineered to protect FOSS against predatory business interests. Without it, you're reduced to slapping MIT or WTFPL on toy programs and being subject to EEE the moment you accomplish something interesting.

Of course it is possible for individuals to create an anarchic FOSS by entirely disregarding licenses and IP law, and freely sharing code with each other. But there is no such community of significant size today.

IMO it's worth adding more detail about what legal/license questions exactly are on topic, and what would be directed to the (potential future) legal advice site.

By disallowing legal advice, I was mostly trying to avoid similar issues to the Law proposal, but I do see how it would be impractical to forbid questions about licenses etc. (which is why "Questions about licensing" is included under the topics). If you can think of some way to clarify the scope so that we can avoid potential legal liabilities beyond putting up a "All posts here are users' opinions and do not construe legal advice" disclaimer, that'd be great.

I think the distinction you're aiming for is between questions about law and requests for specific advice. "How is X license interpreted by EU courts?" or "what commercial uses does Y license allow?" seem like questions this proposal would allow, right? Would a notice like the one on Judaism Codidact address the problem?