Tongue-in-cheek, yes, but the concerning bit is "(c)" instead of "(TM)". If they don't understand the (huge) difference, do they understand the licensing of their code?
My concern is stated in the very next sentence. Most concerns people have, especially about software, copyright, and licensing, do not involve people getting physically hurt. Why would you jump to that conclusion?
They were being factitious, a concept that apparently eludes you in multiple contexts.
And your jump is laughable for multiple reasons:
a) It's a poor application of logic to imply not knowing Copyright vs Trademark would affect their ability to use an off the shelf license like Apache License 2.0...
The entire point of an off-the-shelf license like the one they used is to not require an understanding of the minutiae of copyright law
b) You're wrong anyways, the phrase is not something that could be trademarked.
Short phrases can be trademarked when they're "inherently creative" or have developed enough secondary meaning that they can be instantly tied to a product or service
"bullshit-free" passes neither bar, so it can't be trademarked.
Ergo you've actually shown that you yourself, do not know enough about licensing to be questioning their facetious use of the copyright mark. It's laughable you'd try to question that at all honestly.
They're obviously being facetious, so it doesn't matter that "bullshit-free" probably can't be trademarked. What matters is that's the place you'd put a trademark symbol, not a copyright one. I'm not worried about the Apache license, but the types of things people without a solid grasp of copyright licensing often do, like copying code from elsewhere without license to, tainting their projects. I don't know whether that's happened here, but seeing things like "(c)" instead of "(TM)" makes me suspicious and less trustful.
> A "bullshit-free programming language" is of course a highly subjective opinion
I hardly think the author would believe the concept to be subjective and also believe they have a monopoly on the phrase’s usage.