Because Mozilla has a dedicated legal team and larger organizational exposure.
Mozilla has "larger organizational exposure" precisely because they're tracking users and packaging up that data for sale.
Yes. Well, that, and Firefox talks to backend services (updates, safe browsing, etc) to do its job for the user, whereas cURL doesn't.
> Do you actually find it hard to believe that the legal terms attached to cURL are entirely sufficient an that Mozilla is using different terms because Mozilla is planning to take meaningfully different actions with respect to user data?
I've known a lot of Mozilla folks for a long time, so, yes.
Except when you actually read the ToU the controversial, unnecessary license doesn't even talk about Mozilla's services at all.
"It also includes a nonexclusive, royalty-free, worldwide license for the purpose of doing as you request with the content you input in Firefox."
Sorry, this is BS. Nobody was going to win shit from Mozilla for typing a URL into their browser that runs locally on their machine. Where they might have gotten in trouble is with their telemetry (e.g. Pocket), but that’s sort of screaming to the problem that they’re pivoting to spyware.