My analysis indicates that 28 files currently indicate they're in the public domain while an additional 50 contain no license information at all, creating the impression that they're still covered by that Copyright file in the root directory.
If the information that you've provided is true, the bug title should probbaly be changed. How will someone reviewing the copyright and licensing information know that the developer has abandoned their copyright and that what they're seeing in that Copyright file in the tarball doesn't actually apply? Shouldn't the copyright and licensing information in the tarball be updated so as to avoid confusion in the future?
