Why would you think this could ever be open source. It will be expensive to develop, and no corporation will spend the money to do so and then open source the software. It may (not likely) be jail breakable, but you still have to pay (probably) thousands to get it.
I was thinking one way for people to afford them would be to accept ads. I would hate that, and I think I'd just wear glasses or normal contacts.
In fact I'd be much more attracted to this sort of thing in glasses, because they'd likely be cheaper, and glasses can probably support more functions. And you wouldn't have a radio receiver concentrating radio energy directly on your eyes.
Sometimes open source on locked down and jailbroken hardware is better. Sometimes it bricks the hardware. I wonder what it's like to have a brick in the eye?
Also this is a thing that goes in your body, and the FDA might have something to say about open source in that context. Is there any open source software running on pacemakers at the moment?
I think there are many more issues involved than simply "it's my hardware and I'll do what I want with it." If we get better eyeware through open source then great, but I'm skeptical at the moment that it can, much less will happen.
"I think there are many more issues involved than simply "it's my hardware and I'll do what I want with it.""
Actually, that's kind of my point more than yours. It isn't as simple as a knee-jerk "it must be closed source". You argued black and I argued not-black; not-black isn't "white", it's white and the greys, too.
That it's possible now with most hardware doesn't mean much. There are powerful entities that have been working for years to ensure that open source is only possible where & when it suits them.
New devices are much more locked down than they would have been a decade ago. That's not an accident or a fad.
