You have addressed most of the comments by the reviewers but some improvements to your manuscript are necessary before it is publishable. More specifically:

- there are several errors in citations/references, probably as a consequence of a wrong use of BibTeX to build the list of references:
* page 3, line 10 should say (DOE, 2018) not (of Energy, 2018)
* page 4, line 3: PO.DAAC is repeated
* page 15, line 12: (ASF, 2018a)

- page 7, line 6: I guess you mean "GNU/Linux". I do not think that you are using only a kernel without any extra layer of software to run your computers. Please, correct it.

- page 14: it is quite a shame that the output format for spreadsheets is .XLS. I understand that nothing prevents the output of being in OpenDocument Format (.ODS), a fully compatible ISO standard for documentation that any other XLS compatible software that you have in mind can open. However the opposite case does not apply. Moreover you do not mention what XLS implementation use. So, would it be a big problem to get an output in .ODS and if not could you clarify the .XLS standard used for it?;

- Section 4:
--- at the beginning of the section you talk about "software releases protected by appropriate software license(s)": this is wrong. Licenses do not protect software. Licenses establish the terms of use and the owner of the intellectual property. Only a few legislations let to "protect" (better to say that they restrict use) software and this is done through patents (e.g. the USA), a completely different thing to a license. So such statement is wrong. I do not know what the authors of the software pretended but it is wrongly exposed.

--- also the next statement is wrong: "these activities require...peer review". To release the code does not require refactoring, testing or documentation. To release code is easy, straightforward and it is worthy at any stage of the development process.
https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2011/5/107698-the-importance-of-reviewing-the-code
A different issue is that you get embarrassed by what you release or that it is not working at all for others, in this case the appropriate sentence would be "in order to do not get embarrassed by the poor quality of the development process extra effort is necessary...". And probably stating such thing is not adding anything here. So better, simply remove the sentence on the need of extra effort;
--- next sentence: "However, it is not easy... ". I do not agree with you at all. There are a lot of free platforms (both from the point of view of freedom and money) to develop code in a collaborative way. It is really easy to find one: Github, Gitlab, Savannah, SourceForge,... If you mean that part of the scientific community is reluctant to use them, this is a sociological issue and it does not have nothing to do with your work. Moreover you do not need it in order to simply state that you have used Apache as your choice. So please, remove it.