You don't sign a contributor agreement with the FSF. You sign away your copyright, but they also agree to only distribute the work under the same terms as the ones you gave it to them (i.e. the GPL in most cases). It is far more equitable than contributor agreements which basically try to remove the right for you to sue the organisation that gives you the contributor agreement. Instead, in exchange for your copyright, you get a promise that your work will remain free.
Also, the process has recently been transformed to be completely over email:
> I don't think the nomenclature is the important point here.
Only if you already knew the difference between what Google asks you to sign when you submit patches to Chrome and what the FSF asks you to sign. If you want to call them both "CLAs", fine, but at least I hope you understand now how they're fundamentally very different. Not every bit of legalese is the same just because it's annoying legalese that you'd rather not have to deal with.
The GPL says that future versions of the GPL will be "similar in spirit". An "or later" GPL that allows non-free derivative works would probably not be viewed by a judge as "similar in spirit". There really is no great danger in the "or later" clause.
> They can't use that to retroactively close off submitted works, but project using other licenses can't do that either.
I don't understand this sentence, can you elaborate? Who can use what to retroactively lock up what, and what other licences do not allow what?
Also, the process has recently been transformed to be completely over email:
https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/fsf-now-offering-paperle...