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™.
LOL backtracking and double speak again. General functionality is POSIX not UNIX, and you're talking in circles again since your finally admitted supposed point was quote "Linux is a UNIX" which is bogus. "Unix-like" is what I have said it is, as it's clearly a different operating system, most of which is specifically named "Not Unix" by the GNU copyright holder. Quite obviously this has become just another perfect example of your double talk, trying to claim you're right when you say Linux is Unix, even though it only meets 1/3 of your own definition, but I'm somehow wrong to call BSD Unix when it meets 2/3 of the very definition you provided. But now that you're trapped all you can do is keep talking in circles, changing your postion, now trying to say it's Unix-like which is actually my position. Not going to work, you already finally admitted your supposed point was quote "Linux is a UNIX" which is still bogus. It's Unix-like, but not UNIX, whether you keep talking in circles or not.