After a quick google search, I read something about Conway suggesting the $m$ having to do with "modulus" ...
This seems odd to me, but perhaps there is some mathematical reason? I've heard of the uses of the word modulus in real/complex analysis and in number theory, but neither seem applicable here.
I found this page independent of vuur and found this question, so I might as well answer it. Specifically,
The Latin simply states that this is the form of a linear equation, and Riccati does not remark upon the use of $m$.
Interestingly enough, Traite Elementaire D'Arithmetique, Al'Usage De L'Ecole Centrale des Quatre-Nations: Par S.F. LaCroix, Dix-Huitieme Edition, published in 1830 does use $a$ instead of $m$ (although it obviously was not written by Riccati).
As DavidK pointed out, George Salmon also used $a$ in his work in the 19th century. I had omitted that from my original answer because he used a different form, $$\frac{x}{a}+\frac{y}{b}=1$$ but it is still a relevant usage.