It seems to be an established tenet of the conventional wisdom that Monte Cook does not like Dungeons and Dragons 4th Edition.
However, I came late to this party and never read the criticisms Monte had as they came out. Now, it seems that his critiques of 4e are hard to find – I wouldn't be asking here if a simple google search of my question title revealed the answer.
I am not interested in anyone else's problems with D&D 4e. I am not interested in anyone's defense of D&D 4e. I am only interested in what Monte Cook had to say on the topic. I would prefer answers with summaries of the points he made and links to the substantiating documents where he made the arguments.
EDIT: While it may be a tenet of the conventional wisdom, it seems that this assertion is, indeed, pretty hard to prove and may in fact, be false. It looks as if most of his criticisms of 4e stem from the pretty-much-universally-reviled GSL. While this is interesting, I was hoping for insight into game-design elements that this well-respected designer, critic, and opinion-maker had serious qualms about.
Best Answer
Monte actually had very little to say about 4e other than that he didn't like its licensing. However, you can guess what he doesn't like about it from his comments on 3e, 3.5, and game design in general.
Practically Mandatory Miniatures
Monte on 3.5 (from here):
No Vancian Casting
I don't have a link or quote handy, but Monte has made it clear on several occasions that he's a big fan of Vancian casting (or at least considers it a defining feature of D&D compared to other products), that is wizards having only daily spells, no encounter or at-will spells. Which is probably why when he was one of the design leads for D&DNext he brought it back (as discussed in some of the Q&A sessions transcribed here).
General Design Philosophy
Also, from Monte's blog, you can see that he's a fan of simulationism (3/3.5 were simulationist, 4e was narrativist/gamist) and that he prefers a more loosely written ruleset (i.e. one that encourages DM adjudication; the difference between 3.5 and 4e in this area is very much open to debate, but most 3.5 fans perceived 4e as having much less player improvisation / DM adjudication).
4e also butchered a lot of other sacred cows, and in general went in a very different direction from 3e, for which Monte was the design lead.