You have an idea. And you originally start out with 2 other people. You build the site and it goes live. However, after less than 6 months, two of the 3 original founders (one being the developer) decide that the project is not for them. It's too hard and it's a lot of work.<p>You then find another developer. He's great. He's talented and he's motivated. He also introduces you to a new designer, which you soon bring on. The project is back to 3 people and everyone is working super hard.<p>Being a non-technical founder, but being the originator of the idea, and being the one who gave birth to it 6 months prior and watched it come to life that entire time, do the other two guys (developer and designer) deserve to be called Co-founders? (It's been 6 months since they've come on)<p>There are other factors, of course. And there's no question that their contributions are huge. And without them the company would not moving to the places it's moving today. However, given the idea, the 6 months prior, the investments both financially and in time, the name, the logo, etc, and most importantly the fundamental idea, should they be called co-founders?
Q: Could you have gone forward without the new guys? "Being a non-technical founder..." sounds like "no."<p>Q: What is their risk/investment level? (from your reply to taude) "They've agreed to a pretty sizable percentage of ownership. None of us are receiving a salary at this point."<p>Are they founders? IMHO <i>YES!</i><p>The company was dead in the water or nearly so when the two original founders bailed. The company did not (most likely could not) pay the two new guys for their services, so they are at the same risk level as you.<p>Given that "founder" is a honorary title and (presumably) does not cost you anything more to confer on them, don't be stingy and don't insert a perpetual irritant where there is no need to do so.
To me, the answer is no. They are "employees with equity" but not co-founders. A founder is someone who started the company - period. I have no other definition with which I could be happy with. To call them anything else is misusing the word IMO.<p>Imagine an investor meeting:<p>Potential Investor: "So you three are the co-founders. How did you start the company?"<p>You: "Well, I actually started the company with two other guys. These new guys came along about six months ago."<p>PI: "So wait - they didn't actually help you found the company?"<p>It's just "messy" if you try to give them a name that just doesn't apply.
Possibly.<p>We've brought someone in 2.5 years after starting and given them a sizeable chunk of equity. Not sure whether we'd "call" him a co-founder or not....but it doesn't really matter. They do have a large % of ownership, which is really what matters more. We likely will never have the need for seed or VC money, nor pursue that path, which might make a difference with something like this?<p>Edit: Another consideration is whether you're paying this new person a fair-market salary.
The whole "co-founder" is more of an egocentric term in this case. In the end, does it make your product better or worse if they are founders? It seems like a waste of focus to even worry about it. But if you must, I would consider the fact that being considered a co-founder might give them a lot more mental ownership and extra motivation when the times are tough.
If calling them "co-founder" helps your business then call them that. If it hurts it, then by all means don't.<p>The important thing is that they are your partners. You are doing well if the most important issue is a metaphysical debate about the essence of founders.<p>Good luck.
As long as you're giving them an equity stake based on their initial absence, who cares what you call them? Although, it might be helpful to have "co-founders" purely for investment purposes since it's a new "requirement" to getting funded...