In the case of the software freedom movement, free code is the primary output
I am not sure what "primary" means in this context. If it means "overall
goal", then no: "free software" aims to "make computer users free", "open
source" aims to "write software of high technical quality".
So, if I showed you a comment thread of a debate between two communist
groups, for example, would you then conclude that there are two distinct
communist movements?
Yes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism lists about ten different
movements inside communism. With different names that enable speaking about
their different values in a meaningful way. It does not mean you cannot use
"communism" to talk about the intersection of those values. In the same way,
"FLOSS" is a useful term to talk about the values that both "free software"
and "open source" hold: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/floss-and-foss.html
None of the Haiku developers played any part in that debate.
They are at the root of the debate: they choose to include proprietary
firmware, to document the installation of proprietary software, etc.
You make change by releasing working software that uses as few proprietary
components as possible, while always moving towards the goal of 0%
proprietary components, in every way you can.
If you want to argue for that change, you had better use the term "free
software" to be understood. That is indeed the free software way. Not the
open source way. Open source users use the best technical solution, even if
it is proprietary.
If Haiku followed your ideological demand not to follow the GNU example, to
*never* use proprietary components, even as a transitional strategy, this
would prevent them from releasing a working OS or building a userbase.
I have never ever made such a demand: there is a need for a transition.
