This is good information and is generally good practice from lemonade stand to high-tech venture, but if I recollect correctly your product is kind of low tech. It is more of a taste thing, rather than intellectual property. Things get really complicated when the line between tangible and intangible is not so clear. Division of patent rights can get kind of sticky in liquidation, so the complexity of the contractual arrangement increases. Lawyers become necessary and a simple founders agreement penned on a StarBuck's napkin becomes the stuff of "things I should have done differently." when you are at each other's throat.
I guess patience is the key when two individuals with commom vision start a business. And once its business everything needs to be clear on papers. I mean the term and conditions. Roles and responsibilites should be clear. It helps in the long run.
Hopefully I am a nice guy, I guess that's for others to judge though. It's not so much a case of how nice it is of me to give up some founders equity it is more about keeping the business together. In an even split where one person does less work the business may ultimately suffer and morale can/could/will drop. That's not good for the business and could eventually lead to it falling apart. A wise (and experienced) person once reminded me that "it is better to have a small part of something, than a large part of nothing"
On the public disclosure side of things, there is little in the post that anyone could do anything with, a little bit of digging around and poking into publicly available records in the future would reveal as much (as it would with any company though).
Thanks for your comment
Thank you for sharing, very informative. You must be a nice guy to voluntarily take a minority share of the company. Usually as a company grow, the technical person will eventually take the back seat. Also regarding the sharing part, you may discover in the future that disclosing the details of the Founders' Agreement to the general public may not be the best idea.
Replay available now: A handful of emerging network technologies are competing to be the preferred wide-area connection for the Internet of Things. All claim lower costs and power use than cellular but none have wide deployment yet. Listen in as proponents of leading contenders make their case to be the metro or national IoT network of the future. Rick Merritt, EE Times Silicon Valley Bureau Chief, moderators this discussion. Join in and ask his guests questions.