> Well, that's the thing. Is it Pyra's objective freedom
No, but that wasn't Samsung's objective when they designed the Galaxy S2, either. Projects like the Pyra are better for us, though, because these are people who do prefer "open source" and are trying to avoid proprietary software dependencies to an extent.
> What I can't understand is why do those projects are not listed as viable options by the FSF.
The FSF doesn't list much of anything as a viable option. All it lists are devices currently available for purchase which have been granted RYF certification, and vendors which currently sell computers pre-installed with GNU FSDG distros.
> Why is it that the FSF openly supports replicant and other projects and not Novena and Pyra? There for is the reason I thought that supporting replicant can be consider first before Novena and Pyra.
Please note that supporting Replicant is not even close to the same type of thing as supporting the Pyra. The Pyra is a piece of hardware being designed and manufactured. Replicant is an operating system. It's kind of like, supporting Trisquel is a good thing to do, but it's not a substitute for supporting Think Penguin.
Of course, the people behind the Pyra are more like e.g. ZaReason than Think Penguin. Their objective is not the same as ours. But you have to put it into context. I would say that it does us more good to support ZaReason than to support ASUS, for example. Similarly, I think it's probably better for us to support the Pyra than to support Samsung phones.
