So then Ben might say something like: "I co-founded Docker. I was hired 2 years after it was founded." And that wound give you pause? It seems to me we're divor

So then Ben might say something like: "I co-founded Docker. I was hired 2 years after it was founded." And that wound give you pause? It seems to me we're divorcing the word "founder" from the concept it derives from, which is the act of founding. I suspect that, should this become common practice, it will quickly devalue the title of co-founder. The only reason it has the allure that it does is because, in most people's minds, it's not a title like any other since. For most people, the only way to be a founder is to found. All this being said, I do agree that this wasn't the article's mistake. I suspect if you asked the author if he's under the impression that Ben was present when Docker was founded though he'd say yes, so in some sense he's been misled. That's what most people take from the term founder I believe.