There's nothing about Windows licenses in there. There is a specious claim that I can't modify the DLL in some circumstances, but I doubt that's enforceable in any jurisdiction Microsoft could reach me, and to the careful reader the license almost admits as such.
If I'm NVidia in this case, these would be pretty easy to follow. Now I redistribute the DLL: My user downloads the DLL and uses my software (with the DLL) in Wine. Good for them. I have a happy customer. _Maybe_ Microsoft is unhappy, but I'm not sure what they can do besides pound sand: _I_ haven't violated those terms, and my user doesn't have any relationship with Microsoft.
If I've made a mistake and the Visual Studio redistributable isn't typical, what exactly do you think _is_ a typical license from Microsoft that has the force you suggest?
That's not how copyright law works in the slightest.
You can absolutely download a file from Microsoft's website and run that file on Wine and Microsoft cannot get a judge to hold you to any "license terms" elsewhere on that website. I am not your lawyer and this is not legal advice, you are just a moron if you think otherwise.
Furthermore, I also don't think Microsoft would claim otherwise! But you are still welcome to prove me wrong by providing just _one_ example on their website of a license that you think could force me to do anything at all, because of a DLL _you_ can give to me (aka "a redistributable")
