Without more context, this statement kind of gives the impression that you must pay for a license to use the default image, but that's not the case. The term "commercial" is appropriate, but in the vast majority of situations that term refers to things that cost money, and that's not the case here.

Perhaps we can use this opportunity to elaborate about how the images come baked in with all of our free features by default, including apache2 licensed features and elastic licensed features. Folks can also choose to opt-in to a 30 day free trial of our platinum features as well.

Then alternatively folks can get oss-only images.

Can we phrase this more like "open source only distribution" rather than simply "open source distribution"?

This isn't really accurate. The distributions as a whole are offered under the apache2 license, but the code within them is licensed under many different apache2-compatible licenses, like MIT, BSD, etc. I think a simple fix here is referring to the license of the distribution itself rather than the code within it, since that's the important detail for the sake of installation. Perhaps:

Alternatively, you can download the following package, which contains only features that are available under the Apache 2.0 license.

I totally thought I added this comment before, but apparently not:

nit: Perhaps "and access to paid commercial features" would be more clear?