not really
think of it this way you could be running active production workloads at BOTH sites but only have a need to "protect" vm's at one of the sites....for whatever reason, could simply be that the workloads at the alternate site although production are not classed as critical enough that you need to protect them with replication to the other site. just because your sites are active / active doesn't always mean you need to replicate in both directions at all times, yes that's common but not strict requirement but i digress.......so what that paragraph is basically saying is you only need license keys available at the site where you intend to "protect" vm's, if the other site will contain no protected vm's you don't need srm licenses for it.
when a failover occurs of course the licenses are just reused when you need to re-protected the vm's that failed over so that you can fail them back.
so simply put SRM licenses are per-vm you need as many licenses available as vm's you intend to protect...which site the vm's live on doesn't matter as you can divide the licenses between the sites or if using linked mode vCenter between the sites just assign the licenses to the pair of sites and the vm's will draw down a license from the "pool" as it were.
