No, the FSF specifically requires ownership transfer for GNU projects, so that they can do things like go after infringements in court, or relicense GNU projects to newer versions of the GPL unconditionally, e.g. when GPLv3 was released.
Ironically, CLAs like the one Google and Meta use for their projects on GitHub do not require ownership transfer -- only the rights to redistribute, because the prevailing Lawyer-brain belief is (roughly, to my understanding) that just assuming that right from the license itself isn't necessarily sound.
For licenses like Apache 2.0, assignment/ownership is a kind of irrelevant practical distinction because entities can just distribute proprietary versions anyway (and because it's not clear if you really agree to much more than e.g. Apache 2.0 implies), which is the prevailing worry people have. Most of the people here actually want GPL-style copyleft licenses along with some vague idea of a "communal project", even if they don't know it. Because that's the only way to achieve the practical desired outcome, where your code and contributions stay open and are difficult to "rework" in this way. The talk about CLAs and all the other stuff is irrelevant; it's a matter of the politics and composition of the project, not the exact legal words in the license.
> everyone that contributed, even if it's just a 1 line change
That depends on the jurisdiction. There is a concept called the "threshold of originality" in the US which states roughly that some obvious, trivial things just can't be copyrighted. Typofix patches that change "form" to "from" aren't meaningful enough to be given copyright, so you literally do not need to be consulted on the matter at all. It is not clear that simple bugfixes fit under this definition either for example, because they may be obvious. Realistically, I'd say there are very few contributions that are going to fit in 1 line while being original enough for copyright to apply. They could also just not include your patch too or rewrite it, in that case, so the "1 line" case is pretty much meaningless in practice.
Ironically, CLAs like the one Google and Meta use for their projects on GitHub do not require ownership transfer -- only the rights to redistribute, because the prevailing Lawyer-brain belief is (roughly, to my understanding) that just assuming that right from the license itself isn't necessarily sound.
For licenses like Apache 2.0, assignment/ownership is a kind of irrelevant practical distinction because entities can just distribute proprietary versions anyway (and because it's not clear if you really agree to much more than e.g. Apache 2.0 implies), which is the prevailing worry people have. Most of the people here actually want GPL-style copyleft licenses along with some vague idea of a "communal project", even if they don't know it. Because that's the only way to achieve the practical desired outcome, where your code and contributions stay open and are difficult to "rework" in this way. The talk about CLAs and all the other stuff is irrelevant; it's a matter of the politics and composition of the project, not the exact legal words in the license.
> everyone that contributed, even if it's just a 1 line change
That depends on the jurisdiction. There is a concept called the "threshold of originality" in the US which states roughly that some obvious, trivial things just can't be copyrighted. Typofix patches that change "form" to "from" aren't meaningful enough to be given copyright, so you literally do not need to be consulted on the matter at all. It is not clear that simple bugfixes fit under this definition either for example, because they may be obvious. Realistically, I'd say there are very few contributions that are going to fit in 1 line while being original enough for copyright to apply. They could also just not include your patch too or rewrite it, in that case, so the "1 line" case is pretty much meaningless in practice.