Alright, I'm going to try and speak in a manner somewhat belying the fact that I've made an account here specifically to point out how dumb some of the ideas expressed in this thread are - please bear with me.
Working as a software developer may give you some insight into software licensing that others do not gain through their occupation. It may also give you an inflated sense of understanding of IP law relating to software, possibly to the extent that you would talk down to people that disagree with your warped perspective, maybe even to such a degree that you end up cultivating 25 pages of pure, hellacious suffering in the guise of a discussion on a forum.
There is simply no way that the mere possession of a DLSS binary would cause whoever holds it to be subject to the terms of the license agreement for the SDK used to create it. We could get into the weeds of why these terms do or do not automatically apply within the associated legal framework, but that's not actually necessary. Any person of reasonable intelligence and common sense would be able to imagine dozens of absurd hypothetical situations that would become possible if this were actually how these license agreements worked, and the statement that this is how they do work is indeed an extraordinary claim.
Anyone who wishes to make such an extraordinary claim regarding the technicalities of a particular aspect of IP law is, of course, free to do so in the setting of a casual discussion, but given how totally absurd it is, the burden of proof would surely lie with them. If I were going to put myself in that position, I'd want to make sure that I was actually a lawyer.
For the sake of my mental well-being, I've chosen not to diligently pore over all 25 pages of the thread to check if this point has come up already, but can I please state the extremely obvious? This being that the DLL file is completely useless unless deployed alongside a game or software application with a functioning DLSS implementation, along with compatible NVIDIA hardware? Further, that any piece of software that could possibly make use of this binary was already shipped to the end user with an equivalent binary?
Honestly, I normally would just read this and move on, but the idea that somebody would:
1. Seek out a non-existent problem,
2. Talk down to people that rightly tell them that the problem doesn't exist,
3. Report the gracious hosts of the community they're a part of to a powerful mega-corporation with the hopes of causing those hosts legal issues,
4. Upon realising that they were wrong the entire time, choose not to apologise nor admit that they were incorrect and have behaved inappropriately, but instead seek to moralise their actions, claiming that regardless of their failure to achieve their fundamentally corrupt goals, the overall exercise still served a higher purpose in educating regular people about the plight of software developers and their various responsibilities -
With all due respect, Aquinus.. take the piss. Take the absolute piss.
J