I’m simply proving your claim “Linux is a UNIX” is bogus, since that was your supposed point that took you twenty posts to finally admit, you said you’d even put it on first grade level but you are clearly wrong. LOL even under your own definition, my claim ATT decendants are UNIX is more correct, meeting two of the three prerequisites. You can keep flopping about and twisting like a pretzel, but even under your own definition, you lose on all counts. Linux is NOT a UNIX, no one who owns the copyrights and trademarks thinks it is, while BSD meets more conditions of UNIX using your own definition.
You might as well give up since it absolutely fits the general functionality definition, making it a UNIX in general, or, more specifically UNIX-like.
LOL even under your own definition, my claim ATT decendants are UNIX is more correct, meeting two of the three prerequisites.
Back to first grade again: there are no number of prerequisites. It can fit any one of the definitions to be called a UNIX.
Now remind me again, which definition do you currently use, the lineage one or the certification one? You've used both. Do you admit to inconsistency and flip-flopping (ahh, remembering Kerry), or do you admit that there are multiple definitions of UNIX? Nice corner you've painted yourself into: admit to being inconsistent or admit I'm right.
while BSD meets more conditions of UNIX using your own definition.
First, these are not my definitions. Second, as above there's no such thing as "I meet more definitions so I'm more UNIX." Third, BSD only meets the general functionality definition. Some people might also put it with the lineage definition out of nostalgia, but it has no or almost no Bell/AT&T code, so it really only fits the functionality definition. Fourth, OS X is the only BSD variant (although it's not completely BSD) to be UNIX™.