Weird move from BreezeBlue to hide top tier TTS models above themselves.
They're not hiding shit. Literally all TTS models shown above them in these benchmarks are PAID, thus only accessible through API. So imagine being so desperate in finding any excuse to whine about an OPEN-SOURCE model like this. How pathetic.
Lol, @amarosnithe over here kneeling on the concrete, licking and caressing BreezeBlue's toes.
Breeze TTS 2.0 weights are restrictive, lil pup.
Their license explicitly says:
Model weights, checkpoints, adapters, derivative models, and self-hosted outputs are governed by the BreezeBlue Research and Non-Commercial License, and the Apache License covering the source code does not grant rights to use the model commercially. Then, separately: an active paid subscription lets you use outputs generated through BreezeBlue's hosted platform or API commercially, but a paid subscription does not grant commercial rights to the open-weight model or self-hosted outputs.
So you must either:
- Run it on your own GPU, but research and non-commercial use only.
- Use breezeblue.ai's hosted API and pay a subscription, and the audio you generate there can be used commercially.
Just for the record since this was closed and the last 2 comments were censored (this time without the swearing on my part):
Random dude accuses BreezeBlue of "hiding better performing models", and posts benchmark scores from ArtificialAnalysis showcasing his "proof" (a very bold and harmful accusation, akin to essentially accusing BreezeBlue of fraud).
I verify his claim, I check every single TTS model listed above Breeze-TTS-2, and immediately find out that ALL OF THEM (literally zero exceptions) are API-only (not open-source, you're forced to pay for them in all use-cases).
I immediately call him out and objectively point out: "No, BreezeBlue isn't hiding anything, these models are API-only and have nothing to do with Open-Source models."
With sassy single mom energy, the dude proceeds to mock me and essentially call me a "payed shill", with also the following rebuttal: "Oh but BreezeBlue license terms are restrictive."
I then mocked him for his shill comment, and hit him with a very simple (and obvious) point: "Ok, but what does their license have to do with your accusation?". I then point out how BreezeBlue's whole marketing is based on OPEN-SOURCE MODELS.. and as restrictive as BreezeBlue's license terms are? ..Breeze-TTS-2 is still open-source, and from the very benchmarks he posted it's indeed the best performing open-source model out there (completely ruining his accusations since no, there's no open-source model listed being above them).
Idk what he wrote next since his comment was taken down for "spam", but he probably tried scrambling for another excuse.