I had originally voiced some concerns in the comments, but have decided to go much further in-depth in what I see.
First off, we need to stop looking at this from a technical standpoint. That's easy for me: I don't know of any 1960s game since I'm only 15. I grew up with Game Boys and Pokemon at my side.
About the question, let's dive into a deeper analysis:
What is the copyright status of the source code of “Adventure” (also known as Colossal Cave Adventure)?
Is that an open source related question, or is it a specific issue that is encountered in open source development? No. Allowing these sorts of questions sets a dangerous trend. We'll start a dangerous precedent, allowing questions that would quite likely overturn a big portion of the scope. A legal term, stare decisis applies to this. By setting a basic question that is borderline, and accepting it, you now create a spot where close voters, and question authors can point to in an argument for closure.
In essence, we can start seeing posts like these:
What is the copyright status of iOS? Can I make my own derivative version of this?
What is the copyright status of Photoshop? Can I relicense this under the GPL?
Had the question been one of these, it would've likely been closed, no argument. By allowing this question, we set an example that allows these questions.
But the project could possibly be Public Domain!!
I didn't know that. For all I know, Photoshop could've been Public Domain by now. That doesn't excuse anyone from this, the question about whether I can place Photoshop in the Public Domain, is simply not an open source question, even if the answer to that question leads to another question that is on-topic.
So what do we do about this?
Stack Exchange thrives on questions about specific projects. Quoting Robert Cartaino:
Do we want to allow specific questions?
Not just 'yes', but… helllll yes!
I have no problem with specific problems. I love finding and answering them.
However, we're a site about Open Source, and we're not a site where I can determine who owns [so and so product].
How can this question be made on-topic?
If a question like this is to be on-topic, it is the responsibility of the author to prove to us that the project is open-source. We're just not simply here to try and do the research for people.
Simple. You tell us a specific project, and you tell us the copyright status. If it's in the Public Domain, we'll tell you the licensing issues, but we're not here to find the copyright status for you, because we're not trained to do that: we're trained in open-source specific issues.