[BoorishBears]

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.

[mkl]

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.

[eyelidlessness]

Oh my actual god you are taking a clear bit of jest (you said so yourself) and acting as if it wasn’t in jest to make it an actual worry that you think it’s representative of what’s in the codebase? The author was clearly making a little fun of their own description of the project. Lighten up. Or file an issue correcting the jest to your liking.