**You were at the very least misleading**. At least once you've started to question yourself, you'd be at least borderline lying and after reading this answer intentionally misleading (with a possible way out). 

**If this came up in an interview I'd (likely) reject you for being dishonest or at the very least unprepared and unclear in your communication.** At the least it would be a big negative point on the character assessment side. I don't need a colleague who is not aware of typical convention in important communication or even worse who intentionally tries to play the rules by *strictly technically* not breaking them. Then again, perhaps for some professions that's a plus point...

Why is that:
In all environments I've worked so far, any degree listed on a CV under education is by convention a degree the candidate claims to hold. If that is not the case that needs to be marked. Since you wrote 

> - BSc Engineering | University of x | 2000 to 2002
> - LPIC-2 Linux Engineer | Linux Professional Institute | 2010 - 2011

That refers to a degree, namely a BSc. The time is irrelevant, there are enough ways and places where one could get a Bsc in that time (and one can also easily read that as 3 years). If that seemed a short time, the natural assumption would be that you were excellent and finished really fast or perhaps that there was some special arrangement at play. (It would be different if you listed individual courses without an associated degree.)

Now, if the normal convention in your location area differs from what would be considered standard in my typical environment, you might be fine, but you should make sure that others in that environment really read this explicitly as "time spent towards" instead of "education with degree received". 

If you don't know the normal convention, morally you can claim ignorance - which from now on you cannot having read this answer.



*The general underlying issue:*

The underlying is that this a 'special' case in a sea of 'normal' cases. You generally have two options: you try to hide the fact that it's unfinished or you point it out such that it is crystal clear. I'd personally always prefer an honest factual approach. If you try to hide it, maybe it's overlooked and people hire you assuming the wrong thing - perhaps it's overlooked forever or it creates bad blood later. If it comes up at the interview stage it's likely that it will have worse repercussions than if it was clear from the beginning (especially if you can show that you did good in the time you spent there). 

You can still make it sound as good as possible: For instance, psychologically one might argue that "unfinished" has negative side-connotations, which is why I suggest the more factual 2 years of X way to make it clear. Or if you have good grades, point to them being attached if that is possible. This is all less of an issue as well if you can provide a cover letter as well, where in one side note you can explain that while you did good, it wasn't your thing but that other interesting stuff got a hold of you. Topic covered, there are plenty of successful smart dropouts.

Again, in some places the convention might not be in place or not as strongly. I'd still argue that clarity is always beneficial as negative surprises in or after the interview process are most of the time not worth it, but the less the convention is common, the it's a moral lying issue and more an issue of (wilful) unclarity or (if the convention is strictly time spent) adhering to the convention and not providing more information than necessary.