Sorry, I thought you can read german since you asked for the legislations. My bad.
§ 1: This Act applies to all electronic information and communications services, [ . . . ]. This Act applies to all providers, including public bodies, irrespective of whether a charge is made for use.
§ 2: For the purposes of this Act
(1) A service provider is any natural person or legal entity that provides its own or third-party telemedia for use or provides access to use.
§ 5: General Information Obligations
(1) Service providers have to keep the following information easily recognizable, directly accessible and constantly available for business-like telemedia, which are usually offered for payment:
[ . . . ]
(2) Further information obligations under other legal provisions shall remain unaffected.
Staatsvertrag für Rundfunk und Telemedien (RStV)
§ 55: Information obligations and information rights
(1) Providers of telemedia that do not serve exclusively personal or family purposes shall keep the following information easily recognizable, immediately accessible and permanently available:
- name and address as well as
- in the case of legal entities, also the name and address of the authorized representative.
The issue is that Apps fall under the TMG as soon as they serve content to the user (which is the main purpose of a app)
One could argue that publishing the app here is far beyond “exclusively for personal or family purposes”.
Furthermore, the mere possibility for the app to generate income on the market is enough to require a imprint. The provider doesn’t have to generate income with it.
While it might be true that F-Droid could be considered the publisher, it’s questionable to say that F-Droid is also the service provider.