Good for me, since that would obviously show my interpretation is more correct. Using the formal trademark Linux is definitely OUT. You can whine all you want about it, swear it's going to happen one day, but under the true definition your claim "Linux is a UNIX" is again bogus.
Lineage from Bell/AT&T is not required.
In a historical context it does, when you are describing "Unix". Linux is a different product, different name, mostly different development track until recently, and the copyright holder on most of the core O/S has labled it quote "NOT UNIX".
So most if not all of the copyright and trademark holders regarding Linux and the UNIX trademarks say Linux is not UNIX, yet you claim this somehow proves me wrong when it obviously blows your claim Linux IS UNIX completely out of the water.
No. In post #73 you claimed the definition was lineage. The formal trademark that you are currently supporting requires absolutely zero lineage. You switched your position on the definition of UNIX.
You can whine all you want about it, swear it's going to happen one day
I doubt Linux will ever be certified UNIX™. Torvalds has no desire to do it, and I don't care if he ever does.
but under the true definition your claim "Linux is a UNIX" is again bogus.
You have so far flipped between two definitions of UNIX. Linux qualifies under the third. All you have to do is change your position one more time to be in agreement.
In a historical context it does, when you are describing "Unix"
Now you're back to the lineage definition. Pick one and stick with it.