If you really need to use "expert install", there is in my view no problem
whatsoever.
An expert knows what he is doing; offering the possibility to install
non-free software is imo only a problem if unexperienced users end up doing
so by mistake, because they don't know better.
My freedom is not threatened by an offer to install nonfree firmware. I can
just click "no", and that's it.
A lot of people think that "optionally free is not enough" (please don't link
to the gnu page, i already know it).
I think that's partly true and partly wrong.
Is the freedom by default or somehow hidden deep down in a list of options?
Is it difficult to stay free because the software repository is misleading,
or the operating system is _endorsing/advertising_ the use of non-free
software (in the sense like "yay, it's great... forget about freedom")
Then I think "optionally free is not enough".
Otherwise i don't think so.
Just because another option appears on my list of options, my freedom is not
at stake. I can just choose to not use it.
If somebody disagrees here, he has to think about the consequences:
We would become more and more free if proprietary options that we don't even
use died out.
That's nonsense.
