[ryandrake]

I guess this is a terminology question: If you already have founded a company, how can you be looking for a co-founder? Isn't it already founded?

As a technical person and potential co-founder, I would be very wary of the "Company with non-technical founders looking to get their product built" scenario. First, it looks like they're looking for an employee, not a founder (see above) and second, I would want to vet that product idea front-to-back in terms of technical feasibility and schedule.

[mathgeek]

The "founder" title carries prestiege, which can fool some folks into thinking they are really founders. The important part, if you really want to be a cofounder in more than title, is to make sure you have equal share and control with all other cofounders. Otherwise you are indeed just an employee (which can be fine as well if you are satisfied with it).

[hkmurakami]

Doesn't have to be equal. Had to be substantial (depends on stage of joining and how much derisking has been done)

[mathgeek]

To me that's an employee with substantial power, but mostly it's a semantic disctinction which goes to my original point. It does get a little fuzzy when you have enough share to "not get fired".