No. But you have that backwards. The FSF is good because they protect everyone's freedom to use the software, and one of the ways they do that is through copyright assignment (not a CLA).
It also means that the company can sell proprietary versions with extended functionality, and the company is therefore motivated to not allow contributions to the free code which duplicates functionality which they sell.
However, since ChakraCore is released under a permissive license (like most corporate open source projects), Microsoft could do the same thing without a CLA. It matters more when something is under a GPL variant...
It's a good point, but it matters for Apache licensed code, too, because Apache 2.0 has a self-destruct clause in the patent grant to keep all parties' lawyers in check. CLAs (like the one Microsoft uses) routes around that.
The way this ends up working for Microsoft projects licensed under Apache 2.0 is that it essentially allows Microsoft to do anything with the contributions (as if it were licensed under MIT, with a liberal interpretation of the implied patent grant), but requires everyone else to continue abiding by Apache 2.0. Not exactly balanced.
EDIT: I'm totally confused about why people are having a problem with this comment.
Many license allows that without a CLA. The CLA allows the company to change the license of the code to whatever they want. Which is usually inhibited by license compatibility...
