I think that is not accurate. Haskell's notion of a functor is basically taken from category theory. Same with applicative functor. It is easy to draw commutative diagrams for things like `Maybe` or `Either a` to prove it!
In contrast in OCaml functors are module functions. Do modules form categories? Maybe? I haven't seen anyone talking about category of OCaml modules. Perhaps in some papers. But even if they do I wouldn't call OCaml's claim better. When one says Functor in Haskell it is generally understood as "the category theory thing". When one says functor in OCaml I think most people, myself included, would think "module function", whether it satisfies category-theory requirements or not.
Also, worth pointing out that OCaml too has applicative functors. Those are such functors that when applied to same modules produce same types. Whether that fits with the category-theoretic notion of applicative functor... haven't thought about that! Maybe?
Basically
module M1 = Make(F)(G)
module M2 = Make(F)(G)
module M1 = Make(F)(G)()
module M2 = Make(F)(G)()
Wrong kind of functor, I believe.
Unfortunately, functor actually refers to a whole heap of different terms in various mathematical fields.
Ocaml's functor seems to come from Quine's predicate functor logic, or a related field like combinatory logic.
The whole list seems to be mostly Haskell-inspired terminology translated to JavaScript(?), so OCaml-style modules and thus functors might make less sense to describe thoroughly. (Even though the OCaml people have a better claim to be using Functor in something resembling its mathematical meaning.)