DLPB, stop lying to people immediately before you get yourself into more trouble than you are already in. Your DLL is not separate, and this is not debatable. There is no legal grey area here.
Import tracing reveals that DDraw.dll has a forward linked dependency on Aali.dll, nothing else you say on the matter is relevant since anyone can independently verify this and it's impossible for this to be the case if you aren't linking.
From GNU.org:
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLStaticVsDynamicIt doesn't matter if you link statically or dynamically (Also, you have admitted to linking in this thread which is admissible evidence lol), this propagates GPL and makes the entire combined work GPL in perpetuity. Even if you remove the references now DDraw.dll is still GPL'd code and you cannot distribute it unless it is open source under the terms and conditions set forth by the GPL3 license agreement.
Since it's clear you have no understanding of GPL, let me address the nonsense you have been sending people in private messages.
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/707501179831189505/707588532494925834/Screen_Shot_007.PNGWrong, the terms of the GPL do not require that both executables "communicate with each either" (This could actually be fine if the communication involves only module style data exchange and not linking, which constitutes sharing of protected material under GPL) -- and it isn't the case that the GPL'd dll needs to "communicate" back. Just think about this rationally, why would a copyright holders right to control distribution of derived works be conditional on whether or not the derived work called some other persons code?
There is no ambiguity on linking being allowed when you are distributing the binary, which is a form of the material protected by GPL. You are not linking and then running your code on a server, distributing effectively only the "output" of the combined derived work -- there is some ambiguity regarding whether this is allowed or not but since you are distributing the binary that is irrelevant in your case.
Oh, GPL contaminates so this applies to future versions of DDraw.dll even if you attempt to remove the linkage dependency. Oh and I don't want your source code, as evidenced by the peace offering made earlier in this thread (before you doubled down like an idiot and attempted to further slander me in your spreadsheet and in private messages), you would have been allowed (at least, I would not have struck you) to redistribute DDraw.dll after all linking dependencies were removed without open sourcing it, even though it would still be a violation of the terms and conditions of GPL due to license contamination.
I urge you to reflect on the seriousness of your current situation and comply with the law, one way or another.